Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PEIVATE BUSINESS.

Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),

London and North Eastern Railway Bill (by Order),

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Metropolitan Railway Bill (by Order),

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL,

"to authorise the Corporation of the City of Glasgow to widen a road and reconstruct a bridge in the city; to extend the time for the construction of tramways and other works; to make provision with respect to the licensing and regulation of public service vehicles and hackney carriages in the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

PRIVATE BILLS (CONSOLIDATION).

Ordered, That the Lords Message [7th February] relating to Private Bills (Consolidation) be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with the Committee of the Lords to consider all Private Bills for the exclusive purpose of consolidating the provisions of existing Private Acts of Parliament.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Ordered, That the Committee be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

RAILWAY EMPLOYéS (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).

Mr. HAYES: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that employés of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, who may be in receipt of salary during sickness, are called upon by the Ministry of Pensions to forfeit war pensions on admittance to the Ministry hospital for treatment of war disability, thus making them pay for their own treatment; and whether he will undertake to stop this practice of taking advantage of conditions of private service which exist independent of any war service consideration?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): In any case where in-patient treatment carrying eligibility for allowances is given by the Ministry, it is a standing requirement of the Royal Warrant that pension is suspended for the period of treatment, and any allowances payable are subject to reduction by a sum not exceeding 19s. in respect of the cost of the pensioner's maintenance in the institution. With regard to the last part of the question, I would point out that eligibility for allowances under the Warrant is conditioned by the pensioner being found to be unable, in consequence of undergoing treatment, to provide for the support of himself and his family and that it is, therefore, and has always been, a condition of the grant of these allowances that the amount thereof is offset by any sums received from an employer by way of salary during sickness.

Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if this man went into an ordinary hospital, he would be entitled to retain his 8s. a week life pension and still be in receipt of the income from the company that he receives while he is sick?

Major TRYON: May I point out without discourtesy that the hon. Member
mentioned no name whatever in the question, and it is not fair to raise an individual case on a question that is really general. Do I understand that the hon. Member has referred to the case of Robbins?

Mr. HAYES: As a matter of fact, I was anxious to avoid personal cases, and I have only raised the case of the principle. If the question is to be examined, it will be found that in the case of Robbins it is well expressed.

Major TRYON: In the case of Bobbins, to which the hon. Member has now referred, the position is that, instead of a pension of 11s., he is getting his keep and housing in hospital, which is always estimated at 19s., and furthermore he is getting £3 15s. from the railway company.

Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man's life pension, which he would expect, in view of the award, would be available for the rest of his life, has now been deducted, which will leave him with that much loss of his general income when he comes out of hospital?

Major TRYON: No, the loss does not occur when he comes out of hospital. The point is that while he is in hospital he is obviously better off than he was before.

Mr. HAYES: Cannot there be some review of those questions in which income from private sources is set off against a man's pension when he is being treated for war disability?

Major TRYON: No, because the treatment allowance is a compensation for what he has lost.

Mr. BECKETT: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how we can ever get through Questions if we have a large number of supplementaries on every single question.

HOSPITAL TREATMENT (N. FITZSIMMONS).

Mr. GIBBINS: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions why Mr. N. Fitzsimmons, 3, Stopford Street, Liverpool, an ex-service man in receipt of a disability pension, has been refused treatment by the Ministry of Pensions, and has been
compelled to become an inmate of one of the Poor Law institutions of Liverpool, with the result that the wife has had to seek out-door relief?

Major TRYON: The man referred to is in receipt of pension on account of heart trouble which is held to have been aggravated by service. His present condition is an affection of the lungs, believed to be due to influenzal bronchitis, which is in no way connected with his War disability, and for which, therefore, the Ministry have no authority to provide treatment.

Mr. GIBBINS: Is the Minister aware that this man is in receipt of a 60 per cent. disability pension and that a panel doctor certified the disability for which he is getting the pension?

Major TRYON: I have told the hon. Member what the man is actually suffering from. With his pension and family allowance, he is getting 34s. 6d. a week.

DISABILITY PENSIONS.

Mr. LEE: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will refer the case of S. Hedley, 246, Storforth Lane, Birdholme, to the pensions (entitlement) appeal tribunal; whether he is aware that Hedley enlisted in 1916 and was discharged in 1918 as physically unfit on account of dyspepsia, disablement pension being granted until November, 1923, when a medical board decided the aggravation by War service had passed away; that Hedley has been under medical treatment ever since for stomach troubles; that his complaint is now called dysentery, which would appear to be only another name for the same complaint; and that in 1927 and 1928 he underwent operations, but the stomach trouble is still remaining, and the local doctor believes the complaint to have been continuous?

Major TRYON: I have no power to adopt the course suggested. Mr. Hedley was discharged, after two years and 10 months' service performed entirely at home, on account of dyspepsia, which was found to have been slightly aggravated by service. The decision referred to in the question was not made until five years after his discharge and only after a course of in-patient treatment and medical observation, and though informed, at the time, of his right of appeal
against the award, Mr. Hedley failed to exercise it. His subsequent medical history has been carefully investigated in response co a request by the hon. Member but, as I have informed him, I am advised that the man's present condition cannot be connected with his War service.

Mr. JOHN: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. William Phillips, of 126, Tyntyla Road, Llwynypia, Rhondda, an ex-service man, was in May, 1916, invalided home from Egypt on account of valvular disease of heart; was discharged in August, 1917; on 20th August, 1917, and 6th May, 1918, was awarded 30 per cent. pension for cardiac disease and rheumatism; on 25th June, 1920, was awarded 20 per cent. for the same disability; on 14th June, 1921, was awarded 14 per cent. for disorderly action of the heart and rheumatism; that four independent doctors have recently certified that Mr. Phillips is suffering from organic disease of the heart attributable to War service; and will he now consider the advisability of reconsidering this case with a view of correcting the error in the final award?

Major TRYON: I am aware of the facts of this case, about which I have been in correspondence with the hon. Member. The medical history of the case shows clearly that organic disease of the heart was not caused by War service, and I am advised that the compensation already granted, culminating in a final award, which was affirmed on the man's appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, is an adequate settlement for any disablement which can properly be ascribed to War service.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, in regard to these three questions, 2, 3 and 5, whether an understanding was not arrived at that questions relating to individual cases should, as far as possible, be dealt with by the Ministry and not brought before the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I should not like to lay down any Ruling on that point. It had better be left to the judgment of Members themselves.

SURGICAL BOOTS.

Mr. LUMLEY: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that men who
wear surgical boots have to hand over to area headquarters an old pair as soon as it has been ordered to be replaced, and that, as long delays often elapse before a new pair is received, the men are left with only one pair of surgical boots for several months; and whether he will make arrangements to ensure that the old pair need not be handed in until the new pair has been received?

Major TRYON: No such general rule as that suggested in the first part of the question exists. Old boots are not required to be surrendered until the new supply is ready, though it may happen that, where application is made for a new pair at a shorter interval than the normal, it might be necessary to see the old pair in order to determine whether the case is one for replacement or repair. I am not aware of any complaint as to delay in the supply of surgical boots, but if the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, and will furnish me with the necessary information, I will make inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD ACCIDENTS (AMBULANCES).

Mr. HAYES: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what agencies the police rely in dealing with road accidents in the Metropolitan Police area beyond the London County Council district and outside the area of the activities of the Red Cross ambulance services; and whether the police are experiencing any difficulty in the expeditious removal of injured persons to hospitals?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The police make use of the ambulances of over 60 different agencies, including the St.. John Ambulance Association, 42 urban district councils and 13 borough councils, and it is only in very rare cases that any difficulty occurs in arranging for the expeditious removal of injured persons to hospital.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Mr. TOMLINSON: 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered a review of the position of pre-War police
pensioners, with a view to abolish the means limit which now applies in respect of the pre-War increase of pensions?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This question has been frequently considered, and I regret I do not see my way to propose any alteration of the present law.

NIGHT CLUBS (INSPECTION).

Mr. HAYES: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to any changes in the Metropolitan police organisation for dealing with clubs, gaming, and other disorderly houses; and whether such changes will involve any increase in the strength of the Criminal Investigation Department?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. The Uniformed Branch will continue to be responsible, with assistance from the C.I.D. as occasion may require. The question of further police powers is being examined, and I understand that the Royal Commission have heard evidence on the subject.

Captain O'CONNOR: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the names of the superior officers who were responsible for supervising ex-Sergeant Goddard in the performance of his duties in connection with the control of night clubs and disorderly houses?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The officers of "C" Division who were responsible, in greater or less degree and at one period or another, for the supervision of Ex-Sergeant Goddard between 1914 and his suspension from duty, included four Superintendents, six Chief Inspectors and 11 Sub-divisional Inspectors. I do not think any public interest would be served by my giving their names.

Captain O'CONNOR: In view of the fact that there are evidently a large number of people who are so responsible, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these extensive frauds could have occurred without the connivance of any of them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am quite satisfied that the Commissioner of Police has gone most fully into the whole of this question, and has reported to me.
Certain steps have been taken, but I think there is no need to give any names.

Mr. HAYES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the total number of officers involved still remain in the service?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not without notice.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman allocate to any of the officers responsible the responsibility for dismissing constables who brought charges of irregularity against Sergeant Goddard?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. A constable who brought charges some years ago was dismissed from Scotland Yard after a very long and full inquiry, but, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, I have that matter in hand.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman does not wish to give names.

CLERKS (GUARANTEES).

Mr. DAY: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether clerks in the employ of the Metropolitan Police who usually handle large sums of money are covered by any guarantee policy or bond issued by insurance companies?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. DAY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman take precautions and give protection in order to safeguard public money?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. The public service is of such a character that we believe it is far better and far cheaper in the interests of the nation not to pay insurance premiums.

BURGLARY, WANDSWORTH.

Sir WALTER PRESTON: 18.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that upon a burglary taking place in Wandsworth a few days since, the police being notified over the telephone, 35 minutes elapsed before an officer attended on the premises burgled, although a point-duty man was within an eighth of a mile and the police station only about a mile
distant; and whether a remedy can be found for such delays?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. Such delays, which I agree are regrettable, are largely a matter of transport facilities. I have recently taken the whole question up with the Commissioner.

Sir THOMAS WATTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not the only case where a delay of half-an-hour or so occurred before the arrival of the police, after they had been telephoned for, and that they were within easy reach?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is difficult to say whether I have knowledge of other occasions. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me knowledge. I am doing my best, in conjunction with the new Commissioner of Police, to provide the fullest transport necessary to bring the whole establishment of the Police Force up to the most modern requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING INDUSTRY (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. GIBBINS: 10.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state the number of accidents that have occurred in the building industry during the last 12 months?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The total number of accidents reported in 1928 under the buildings provisions of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, as provisionally ascertained, was 3,754, but this figure includes a substantial number of accidents to persons not employed in the building industry, and I am not at present in a position to give any separate figure for that industry. I shall be glad to forward the information to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS.

Mr. TAYLOR: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has yet received any response to his appeal for a rich man to offer £100,000 for a new Borstal institution?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My appeal produced more than one response, and at one time I had good grounds for
hoping that it would be successful. I am glad to say that there will be no delay in starting the arrangements for providing a new institution. After consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer I have given directions that the preliminary steps shall be taken at once.

Mr. TAYLOR: Do I understand that some individual has offered the gift of this institution, or is the cost going to be borne by State funds?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: One individual got very near to making a gift of the sum, but I am sorry to say it was diverted to another form of charity. It will now be provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. TAYLOR: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain money from public sources if the institution was needed, instead of issuing an appeal of this kind?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If anyone likes to make a gift in relief of the common Exchequer, I see no reason why I should not accept it. Now my right hon. Friend has agreed to provide public money for it.

Mr. TAYLOR: Has not the right hon. Gentleman's action in the matter caused delay?

Oral Answers to Questions — MAGISTRATES (LONDON).

Viscount SANDON: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether extra magistrates will be appointed for London in view of the congestion existing there and the overwork thus entailed on the present staff?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This step was taken last summer, when two additional magistrates were appointed, bringing the number up to 27.

Viscount SANDON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the circumstances now existing demand an increase over and above the additional appointments of last summer?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It so happens that at the moment five magistrates are away ill owing to the influenza epidemic. I should not be justified in asking for more than the 27.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROHIBITED BOOKS.

Mr. DAY: 14.
asked the Home Secretary the number of hooks printed and published on the Continent of Europe that have been banned from, circulation in Great Britain for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: During the year 1928, I issued warrants to the Postmaster-General in respect of 11 books printed and published on the Continent of Europe, with a view to preventing their circulation through the post in this country. Under the Customs Acts, which are not administered by me, there is also power to prevent the importation of copies of indecent books. I have no information as to the number of different books copies of which have been stopped under this power.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any publicity is given to the names of these books, so that people will know what books are banned?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. The hon. Member must take his own steps to find out the names.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOP HOURS (CIGARETTES).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 15.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a joint confectionery and tobacco business can sell confectionery until 9.30 p.m. across the counter, but cannot sell cigarettes across the counter after 8 p.m., although customers can obtain cigarettes from the automatic machine; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to remove such anomalies?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hours referred to were fixed by Parliament after full discussion only last year on the report of a committee which went thoroughly into the whole subject, and I cannot find that my hon. Friend intervened in the interests of smokers when the Bill was before Parliament. As for the use of automatic machines after the closing hour, this does not make labour and is not a breach of the law, and I cannot find that any proposal was made at any time during the passage of the Act of last Session to apply the closing provisions to these machines. As I pointed out in a recent reply to the
hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrooke), it is much too soon to consider amending an Act of Parliament which was passed almost unanimously last year.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman believe me when I say that when the Bill went through this House I did not realise how niggling were these restrictions?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, I believe the hon. Member, but I am not sure of his wisdom and his attention to the business of the House.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that these irritating anomalies were due to the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to extend the terms of reference, so that a sensible compromise could have been found?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not a bit. The Bill passed through the Committee stage and the Report stage, and it was open to anybody to move any Amendments they liked.

Mr. TAYLOR: Was it not proposed to extend the terms of reference so that a solution could have been sought along the lines of a 48-hours week for shop assistants?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is quite a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM).

Mr. KELLY: 19.
asked the Home Secretary the number of applications made since October, 1928, for the operation of the two-shift system under the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act, 1920, and the number of permits granted?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The figures are 29 and 24, respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — ISLE OF MAN.

VICTORIA PIER WIDENING.

Mr. KELLY: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the action of the appointed members in the second chamber of the Isle of Man legislature in holding up the work of the Victoria Pier widening and so preventing work necessary to the island,
the money for this work having been voted by the House of Keys?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The work for which Tynwald voted funds last autumn is not being held up but is proceeding. The incident he refers to occurred in connection with a proposal for the continuation of the work, which is of the nature of a relief work, after the 31st March next.

Mr. KELLY: Seeing that the relief work is part of the whole scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to help this work forward?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not sure whether I have power to give orders to the independent Government of the Isle of Man in this matter. If I did so, I might be attacked for exceeding my own powers.

Mr. KELLY: I understand that the two officers referred to have been appointed by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certain officers who are members of the Tynwald are appointed by me.

OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. KELLY: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received from the legislature of the Isle of Man the revised Bill dealing with old age and widows' insurance; and is it intended to recommend approval of this Measure, seeing the Clause dealing with small shop-keepers' insurance for the purpose of pension is no longer in the Bill?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and the second part does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

OPEN-AIR CLASSES, LONDON.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many open-air classes have been regularly held in London schools during the year 1928; how many children attended them; how did the attendance percentage compare with that of indoor classes; and what were the chief results observed as regards health?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): One hundred and sixty-seven classes were conducted during the period. No separate records of attendance are available, but it appears to have been at least up to the average. The children are reported to have gained in health and mental alertness.

BUILDING SCHEME, HALIFAX.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the Halifax Education Committee have made an application to his Department for approval to the erection of manual and cookery instruction rooms, and a swimming bath, on land owned by the Halifax Education Committee adjoining the Salteshebble council school; whether his Department have given approval; and, if not, the reason?

Lord E. PERCY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. With regard to the manual and cookery instruction rooms, it is not clear whether they could most suitably be provided in connection with this particular school rather than another school, and I have accordingly asked the authority to suspend their proposal until they are in a position to formulate their reorganisation scheme. With regard to the swimming-bath, I should not feel justified in approving for grant an expenditure estimated at between £9,000 and £10,000 on this provision.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: May I ask the Minister whether, when considering the importance of putting down manual and cookery instruction rooms in elementary schools, he will send some representative of his Department to view the site and ascertain the demand in the area before he arrives at a definite decision? Secondly, as far as the construction of the swimming bath is concerned, may I ask the Noble Lord, when he is considering the report that has been submitted to him by the chief medical officer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must remember that we have many other Questions on the Paper besides his, and, if all supplementary questions were of the same length, we should never get on.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: I submit that this is an important matter, and it has been dealt with by the Board of Education in a very casual way. This is the only way in which we can raise the matter in the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: There are 103 Questions on the Order Paper, to which every hon. Member attaches equal importance. I cannot distinguish between the importance of one Question and another.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: May I respectfully point out to you that, although there may be 103 Questions on the Order Paper which are important, it does not necessarily follow that those whose Questions come first have not the right to have their Questions answered in a satisfactory way?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not been a Member of the House very long, but he will see that if we took up as much time on each Question we should never get through those on the Paper.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: I am quite aware that I have not been long in the House, but I still claim that I have a right to a proper answer to a Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—and, with your consent and approval, I must ask for an answer from the Noble Lord as to whether he will send down a representative of his Department to view this spot or give an undertaking that he will not come to a definite conclusion until—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must really not take advantage of the latitude given him. I have given him a great deal more latitude than I should have given to older Members of the House.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: I do not want to take advantage of any latitude that has been given to me, but I want to ask the Noble Lord if he can give an undertaking that he will not come to a definite conclusion until he has considered the local circumstances?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member has not heard the answer which I gave. I have not come to any final decision, and I cannot come to any final decision until the local education authority gets on with its scheme of reorganisation. It is
the local education authority which is to blame, not myself.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Name.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: On a point of Order. The question of reorganisation has nothing to do with the production of this scheme.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

SECONDARY EDUCATION (FREE PLACES).

Mr. W. BENNETT: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Education the names of the local education authorities in whose areas are situated the 66 maintained, and two other secondary schools, stated in the Board's statistics for 1926–27 to charge no fees; and will he state the number of such schools in the area of each of these local education authorities respectively?

Lord E. PERCY: As the answer is of a statistical character I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Area.
Maintained Schools Number which charged no fees.


Wallasey
2


Plymouth
2


Durham County
17


Manchester
6


Oldham
1


Salford
2


Smethwick
1


Bradford
9


Sheffield
5


Glamorgan
10


Cardiff
4


Merthyr Tydfil
3


Swansea
2


Newport
2

The two non-maintained secondary schools are situated in Bristol, which has a total of 14 secondary schools recognised for grants.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many children obtained free places in secondary schools in the West Riding of Yorkshire area in the last year for which figures are available, and the number of places obtained by fee-paying students?

Lord E. PERCY: Of the entrants to secondary schools in the West Riding of Yorkshire during the school year 1927–28, 1,963 children obtained free places, 49 were otherwise exempt from the payment of tuition fees, and 1,254 paid fees.

SENIOR AND JUNIOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. HARRIS: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many elementary schools in England have been divided into senior and junior schools under the Board's scheme of reorganisation on this basis; and whether the reorganisation is likely to reduce the number of head teachers required?

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member will confer with me, I will try to give him any statistics in the possession of my Department which will throw any light on the points in which he is interested. When an elementary school is divided into two schools the number of head teachers is doubled, but clearly this is not the information which the hon. Member requires.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS.

LORD MAYOR'S FUND.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will give the definition of a distressed mining area for the purposes of the Lord Mayor's fund; and if he will explain how these areas are delimited?

Lord E. PERCY: Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Monday, 11th February, to a question by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Cecil Wilson), of which I am sending him a copy.

RELIEF GIFTS (SOLDIERS' UNIFORMS).

Mr. JOHN: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, under the auspices of the Lord Mayor's fund, soldiers' uniforms and overcoats are being sent into the distressed areas of South Wales to clothe the miners; whether such clothing has been bought from the War Office; who authorised the buying; what was the price paid; and will he take the necessary steps to discontinue buying soldiers' clothes for civilian miners?

Lord E. PERCY: I am informed that none of the clothing referred to has been bought. It forms part of a gift of clothing, including boots and underclothing, from the Army and Air Councils.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

HOLLESLEY BAY COLONY.

Mr. HARRIS: 33.
asked the Minister of Health what it is now proposed to do with Hollesley Bay; whether the Ministry of Labour has refused to take it over; and, if so, in whom it is proposed that it shall be vested?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The Central (Unemployed) body found themselves unable to accept the offer made by the Ministry of Labour to take over the Hollesley Bay Colony in time to enable the Minister of Labour to utilise the Colony for this season's migration to Canada. The Colony accordingly remains the property of the Central (Unemployed) body, and will, on the operation of the Local Government Bill, be transferred to the London County Council.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the powers of the Unemployed Workmen's Act be vested in the London County Council so that they can co-operate in the policy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They will have full powers of co-operation.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not the fact that the Unemployed Workmen's Act is repealed so that they cannot act under the powers of that Act?

TRANSFERENCE OF WORKERS.

Mr. BARKER: 81.
asked the Minister of Labour the number on the live register at Abertillery, Blaina, and Crumlin, Monmouthshire, of men, women, and juveniles who have been transferred and found employment in other areas since January, 1928, to the latest available date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): As the information asked for involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The numbers of men, women and juveniles registered at Abertillery, Blaina, and Crumlin who have been placed in employment in other areas during the year 24th January, 1928, to 21st January, 1929, are as follow:


—
Men.
Women.
Juveniles.


Abertillery
214
36
146


Blaina
811
13
47


Crumlin
70
24
16

The numbers of men from these places who are now in training at the Government Training Centres, or who have completed training and have been placed in employment since 1st January, 1928, are as follow:


—
In training.
Completed training and placed in employment.


Abertillery
19
90


Blaina
28
21


Crumlin
8
43

Persons on the Registers of certain Employment Exchanges at, 28th January, 1929.


—
Hackney.
Poplar.
Stepney.
Stratford.


1. Total numbers* on Register:






Men
4,603
5,371
7,144
3,401


Boys
176
107
243
147


Women
1,493
577
1,170
820


Girls
118
132
193
152


Total
6,390
6,187
8,750
4,520


Number with claims to benefit admitted or under consideration:






Men
4,039
4,462
6,329
2,698


Boys
57
9
63
18


Women
1,304
459
1,029
608


Girls
57
28
17
19


Total
5,457
4,958
7,438
3,343


* The figures include uninsured persons as well as those insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. Of the total on the Register uninsured persons represent 5 per cent. in the case of Hackney, 3 per cent. in Poplar, 5 per cent. in Stepney and 12 per cent. in Stratford.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MIDWIVES (TRAINING).

Mr. HANNON: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Central Midwives Board has directed

EAST LONDON

Mr. LANSBURY: 82.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons, men, women, and boys, were registered on 31st January at the Hackney, Poplar, Limehouse, and Stratford Employment Exchanges; and how many were being paid unemployment benefit?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it possible to give the totals?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have not the final totals added up, but I can give them separately. Hackney, number on register, 6,390; claims admitted or under consideration, 5,457; Poplar, number on register, 6,187; claims under consideration or admitted, 4,958. Stepney, total on register, 8,750; claims admitted or under consideration, 7,438; the figures for Stratford are, respectively, 4,520 and 3.343.

Following is the statement:

that pupil midwives at the two hospitals of the Birmingham Guardians shall cease to take their theoretical instruction within those hospitals; that those hospitals have highly qualified medical officers with ample experience in the
training of midwives, and are equipped with every modern facility; that the guardians of the Birmingham Union have expressed opposition to the proposed change, involving as it does needless expenditure of public money and unnecessary expense to those receiving instruction; and if he will recommend to the Central Midwives Board the propriety of withdrawing their direction pending the report of the departmental committee which has been appointed to consider the whole system of the training of midwives?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware generally of the position as stated in the first three parts of the question. This is, however, a matter in which I have no authority to interfere with the discretion of the Central Midwives Board, and I have accordingly not taken the action suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. HANNON: Can my right hon. Friend think out any means whereby he can prevent such autocratic action being taken by this board?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A departmental committee is considering this matter and a question of this kind will, I think, come within the terms of reference.

Mr. HANNON: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has given consideration to the fact that while the general control of the functions of Poor Law guardians is under the direction of his Department there is nevertheless no appeal from the decision of the Central Midwives Board; and whether he will take steps to make the regulations issued by that board subject to his examination and approval?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This matter comes within the purview of the departmental committee appointed to consider the working of the Midwives Acts, and I must await the receipt of its report.

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Central Midwives Board has instructed the Kingston-on-Thames Board of Guardians that pupil midwives are not to receive their lectures from the medical superintendent of the Kingston and District Hospital, as for many years past, but that other
arrangements must be made; is he aware that this involves pupil midwives in attendance for lectures in London at great expense in fees and travelling expenses and in serious loss of time; and will he direct the Central Midwives Board to withdraw their instruction so that the guardians may continue on the old lines, which resulted in the training of a large number of nurses and in satisfactory examination results?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware generally of the facts stated in the first two parts of the question. As regards the last part, I have no authority to give any such direction, but I understand that the general question involved will receive consideration by the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the working of the Midwives Acts.

LONDON LOCK HOSPITAL.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has now received the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the London Lock Hospital; and whether it is his intention to have it published?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received the report and am in communication with the governing body of the hospital with regard to it. In the meantime, I propose to reserve my decision on the question of publication.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If I put a question down in a week's time, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In a fortnight's time, I shall be more likely to be able to give the hon. Member an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW (CASUAL WARDS).

Mr. DAY: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the report the master of the workhouse at Honiton made to the board of guardians with reference to the conditions that exist in the casual wards at Honiton; and whether any officers of his Department have investigated these reports, and what, if any, improvements have been made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen a newspaper report on the subject. I have not received any special report from my
officers, but I now have before me a proposal of the guardians for the substantial improvement of the wards.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the fact that the statement made by the master is correct; that the conditions in Exeter prison are better than the conditions in the workhouse?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I cannot say that. All I can say is that the conditions are not satisfactory, and I have these proposals for their improvement.

Mr. DAY: If they are as bad as that, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that they are improved?

Mr. BROAD: 40.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of inmates, men and women, respectively, who were in the casual wards on 1st January this year and the three preceding years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The numbers of casuals, men and women (over 16 years of age) respectively, who were in receipt of relief in Poor Law institutions in England and Wales on the night of 1st January in the years 1926 to 1929 were as follows:—


Year.
Men.
Women.


1929
…
…
…
10,400*


1928
…
…
…
9,961
445


1927
…
…
…
10,058
533


1926
…
…
…
7,747
436


* Approximate (The sub-division of this total is not yet available).

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider simplifying the form of the reports issued by his Department in cases of pensions appeal, in view of the fact that these reports sometimes fill many pages of type, and are couched in technical language, so that it is difficult even for an educated person to follow their meaning and quite impossible for
the claimants for whom they are intended to comprehend them at all?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume my hon. Friend refers to the Minister's statement which, in accordance with the References Regulations, is submitted in connection with every appeal. A copy of that statement is forwarded to the claimant but its primary purpose is to set before the referees the reasons for the rejection of the claim. While every effort is used to make the statement as simple as possible, the complete avoidance of the use of technical language, which assumes some knowledge of the provisions of the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Acts, would involve a very considerable increase in the length of the statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL AND RATING.

VAGRANTS.

Mr. BROAD: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the protest made by the Essex vagrancy committee against the lack of provision in the Local Government Bill for making the vagrancy question a national charge; whether he has received any further protests on this point; and what action he is prepared to take, if any?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third wart the Essex Committee desired that failing a national charge power should be taken to compel all unions within the area of a vagrancy authority to come into its scheme and this can be secured under Clause 3 of the Bill.

HOSPITALS.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, the assessment of provincial hospitals in England and Wales has been increased from £1.56 per patient bed to £2.36 per patient bed; and, in view of the financial difficulties which already hamper the work of these hospitals, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no general information as to the effect of the revaluation of hospitals. I can only
refer to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).

Mr. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether yesterday's reply by his right hon. Friend was the last word on the subject, and whether the Government are not prepared to give any reconsideration to the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be very rash to say that it is the last word on the subject. The subject will probably be discussed many times, but, so far as legislation in this Parliament is concerned, it is the last word.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that generally, as a result of the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925, and the present Act, hospitals will be infinitely worse off than before?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am certainly not aware of that fact.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not possible to divert to the hospitals the £400,000 which it is proposed to give to the brewers?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 55.
asked the Minister of Health what is the increase or decrease in the assessment for rating purposes under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, of all the voluntary hospitals in Sheffield and the increased or decreased charge on the basis of present rate poundage?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that the old assessments of all the voluntary hospitals in Sheffield amounted to £1,518 and that the new assessments under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, amount to £l,529, showing an increase of £11. On the present rate poundage this would involve an increased charge of about £9.

WATBE RATES.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in consequence of the increase of assessments as the result of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, water rates where charged on rateable value will be automatically increased; and whether, seeing that no greater value is given for the increased charge, he proposes to introduce legislation with a view to an equitable adjustment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the position and propose to continue to keep it under review. I hope that water undertakers generally can be relied upon to make reasonable reductions of their water rates and that the need for legislation will not arise.

RAILWAY FREIGHT REBATES (CEREALS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 76.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the railway freight rebates which came into effect on the 1st December last are adversely affecting merchant and inland millers in their competition for trade as against the port miller; and, for example, that whole maize and barley are distributed from Hull to grist mills within a radius of 70 miles, the carriage on which for this distance is between 11s. and 15s. per ton, while the port miller is sending the ground products of these cereals the same distance with a 10 per cent. rebate equal to 1s. to 1s. 6d. per ton; and whether he will consider amending the Schedule to the Local Government Bill so that the rebate shall cover all whole grain used for stock-feeding purposes?

Captain BOWYER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. An Amendment to the Eleventh Schedule of the Local Government Bill, on the lines suggested in the last part of the question was rejected by the House after a full discussion on the 1st February. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to reopen the matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister whether, if the fears of the millers turn out to be correct, he will consider amending the Bill at a later stage?

Captain BOWYER: I understand that an Amendment on this subject will probably come up for discussion to-night, and I expect that my right hon. Friend will then be able to answer any questions upon it.

HOUSING.

IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES (COMPENSATION).

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 44.
asked the Minister of Health what schemes for the clearance of insanitary areas have been sanctioned by him during the 12 months
preceding the 1st February, 1929; and the dates upon which such schemes, respectively, received his sanction?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the con sent of my hon. Friend, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information.

Following is the statement:

Improvement or Reconstruction Schemes confirmed during the 12 months preceding the 1st February, 1929.

Date of Confirmation and Local Authority:

15th March, 1928—Chelsea M.B.C. (World's End Passage Area).
18th April, 1928—Leeds T.C. (West Street Area).
7th May, 1928—Sheffield T.C. (Lambert Street, Furnace Hill and Scotland Street Area).
5th July, 1928—Knaresborough U.D.C. (Hope Street).
1st August, 1928—Wednesbury T.C. (Hall End).
13th August, 1928—Brampton R.D.C. 14th September, 1928—Preston T.C. (Poplar Street, etc., Area).
22nd September, 1928—Rochdale T.C. (Richard Street Area).
19th October, 1928—Exeter T.C. (No. 4 Area, Section A).
23rd November, 1928—Liverpool T.C. (Queen Anne Street).

Sir R. GOWER: 46.
asked the Minister of Health what schemes for insanitary area clearance submitted to him by local authorities for confirmation are now under consideration by him; and whether he will consider the advisability of withholding his approval to such schemes until such time as local authorities are required by Law to pay fair compensation to persons whose sound houses and other buildings are acquired by such authorities under the schemes, and to the owners of businesses carried on in such houses or other building?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Nine schemes for clearance of insanitary areas are at present under my consideration. While, as I have frequently indicated, I consider that Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1925, should in certain respects be amended, I do not think that I can
properly withhold approval of schemes put forward on the basis of the existing law.

Sir R. GOWER: 47.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of including in the legislation he proposes to initiate for the amendment of Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1927, provision that fair compensation shall be paid by local authorities who have already carried out, or are in the course of carrying out, insanitary area-clearance schemes to the owners of sound houses and other buildings which have been acquired by such authorities for the purposes of such schemes and to the owners of businesses carried on in such houses or other buildings?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1925. As at present advised I doubt if it would be practicable to provide that any amendment of the law should have retrospective effect.

INSANITARY DWELLINGS.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any statistics to show the number of the population now living in condemned property, in dwellings unfit for human habitation and in slum dwellings?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. MALONE: Do the Government think that if they had tackled these and other social evils vigorously, we should be winning by-elections by 6,000 majorities?

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

IRON AND STEEL.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will make public the terms of the reply to the request of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation for an inquiry into the condition of the iron and steel industry?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend does not wish to make public the terms of his reply to the confederation until the secretary has placed it before the executive council. I understand that he will do this at a meeting of the council to be held next week.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Are we right in assuming that the failure of the Government to go forward with the safeguarding of iron and steel is mainly due to the beneficent influence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That has absolutely nothing to do either with the question or my answer.

DUTY.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of duty received in the last financial year in respect of each of the commodities upon which a duty has been imposed under the safeguarding of industries procedure?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The figures for which the hon. Member asks may be found in pages 97 to 102 of the Nineteenth Report of His Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Command Paper No. 3172) of which I am sending him a copy.

CORRUGATED PAPER BOXES.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 89.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that foreign manufacturers of corrugated paper boxes, by using a certain amount of heavier material than the three-ounce quality on which import duty is payable under the Safeguarding Act and reducing the weight of the rest of the material accordingly, are able to import into this country precisely similar boxes free of duty, owing to the regulation that an article made partly from dutiable material is exempt from duty if one-sixth or more of the total value of the article is represented by non-dutiable material; that this exemption seriously handicaps home manufacturers; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The imports appear, however, to be trivial in relation to the home production, and I have no evidence that they are sufficient seriously to handicap British manufacturers.

NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. HANBURY: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, under the agreement as to double Income Tax made with the Irish Free State, commencing with the financial year 1926–27, persons living in England and owning property in Ireland find that it takes a year or longer to get a refund of tax; and whether he can speed up the refund of taxes or, alternatively, whether he will consider cancelling the above agreement and returning to the old system of Dominion relief?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Repayment of Irish Free State Income Tax under the double Income Tax Agreement made with the Irish Free State is a matter for the Revenue authorities of that country, who, I am sure, will attempt to meet satisfactorily any representations my hon. Friend may make to them in any case in which there appears to have been undue delay. I see no present reason for contemplating the cancellation of the agreement.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my right hon. Friend say how the Clearing House that deals with double Income Tax between the two countries is working?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must have notice of that question.

Sir FRANK NELSON: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the assessment to Income Tax of the Banir Rubber Estates, Limited, whose actual profits since the company's incorporation in October, 1925, to 31st October, 1928, amounted to £26,477, but whose assessment to Income Tax is computed by the Inland Revenue Department to amount to no less a sum than £44,588; and whether he will state the basis on which this assessment was made?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have caused inquiry to be made in the case to which my hon. Friend refers, and I find that in accordance with the law the company has been assessed to Income Tax under Schedule D for the years 1925–26 and 1926–27 on the basis of the profits for those years, and for each of the years 1927–28 and 1928–29, on the basis of the preceding year's profits.

Sir F. NELSON: Is it not a fact that this particular company is being asked by the Inland Revenue to pay more than it has actually made?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend has another question upon this subject, and perhaps I had better answer that question before he puts further supplementaries.

Sir F. NELSON: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer ii his attention has been drawn to the hardship inflicted on certain companies whose profits from whatever cause show a steep decline in 1928 owing to the recent changes in Income Tax law; if he is aware that in many instances the Income Tax authorities are demanding tax in sums larger than the actual profits; and whether he will consider inserting provisions in the Finance Bill of this Session ameliorating this condition of affairs?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I assume that the type of case which my hon. Friend has in mind is the exceptional one of a business whose profits are relatively large at the outset and subsequently diminish. In such a case the result is that for the early years Income Tax becomes chargeable on a total amount greater than that of the profits actually made. Conversely, in the far more general case of the business whose profits are relatively small at the outset and subsequently increase, the Revenue receives tax for the early years on a total amount smaller than that of the profits. This position, which is an inevitable consequence of any basis of liability other than the current year basis, is on the whole very favourable to the taxpayer and correspondingly adverse to the Revenue. In so far as the matter is affected by the legislation which changed the basis of assessment for Income Tax under Schedule D from the three years' average to the preceding year, I would again point out that over the whole field of industry taxpayers have gained very considerably from that change. While provision has been made, so far as reasonably possible, to meet classes of cases in which, owing to exceptional circumstances, hardship might arise, it was impossible to prevent some isolated cases in which a change of this far-reaching character would be unfavourable to the taxpayer. In these circum-
stances I regret that I do not see my way to take any action in this matter.

Sir F. NELSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can recall a similar case to which I drew his attention last December, namely, the case of a rubber producing company which was asked to pay in Income Tax a sum amounting to nearly twice the total of its net profits, and regarding which, I understood, the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to reply that on the basis of further accounts the liability would be much reduced?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I recollect a question being asked on that subject, but I cannot pretend to charge my memory with the details of the answer.

LEGACY DUTY (CHARITABLE BEQUESTS).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give sympathetic consideration in his forthcoming Budget to the reduction of legacy duties levied in cases where sums are left for charitable purposes?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will bear in mind my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, but I cannot hold out any hope of adopting it.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the desirability of making stricter provision against alienation during the lifetime of the persons with a view to evading the duty?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be happy to have the assistance of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

BANK RATE.

Mr. TAYLOR: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any consultation with the Treasury took place before the recent rise in the Bank rate was decided upon?

Mr. ERSKINE: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before the Bank rate was raised to 5½ per cent., there was any consultation with the Treasury?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was, of course, fully informed beforehand. But the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to movements of the Bank rate is not required by law or custom.

Mr. TAYLOR: Would it be accurate to say that the Chancellor expressed approval?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that the answer I have given is one which is entirely in accordance with propriety and precedent.

Mr. TAYLOR: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman a simple question and a direct question. Would it be accurate to say that he expressed approval or not?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. SPEAKER: That is exactly the question that the hon. Member asked before.

BRITISH INVESTMENTS, GERMANY.

Mr. TAYLOR: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the total income of persons resident in Great Britain derived from investments in Germany for the years 1924, 1925, 1926. 1927 and 1928, respectively?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. TAYLOR: Would the right hon. Gentleman give this information at a later date?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No; I do not think it is available in our records.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the increase in British investments in Germany has anything to do with the raising of the Bank rate?

RADIUM COMPOUNDS (DUTY).

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state, for any convenient period, how much money was collected in duties on radium compounds prior to the temporary suspension of the tariff?

Mr. SAMUEL: The amount of duty recorded as collected in respect of radium compounds imported during the 12 months prior to the 15th May, 1928 (i.e., the date on which the temporary suspension of the duty took effect) was £32.

NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the
Government has considered the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on the National Museums and Galleries; whether the urgent proposals made therein commend themselves to the Government; and, if so, what action is contemplated with regard to Sir Joseph Duveen's offer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Subject to further consideration, when detailed plans and estimates are available, of the scale of accommodation required and the period over which the expenditure to be incurred should be spread, His Majesty's Government have decided to undertake the services which, on a review of the needs of the Museums and Galleries, the Royal Commission have classed as of immediate urgency; and intend that work shall begin on all of these as soon as possible. Provision is being made accordingly in the Estimates for 1929 in respect of every such service for which a site is available. His Majesty's Government desire to take this opportunity of expressing their thanks to Sir Joseph Duveen for his generous offer to supplement the provision recommended by the Royal Commission by the contribution of funds for the improvement of the nation's artistic collections.

Mr. MALONE: Will there be a special department in any of these museums for the Chancellor's red herrings?

GERMAN REPARATIONS.

Mr. MALONE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the proposals drawn up by the French members of the committee of experts on the German reparation problem; and whether any similar statement o; aims has been drawn up by the British members?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no knowledge of any proposals made by any members of the committee of experts. I trust that hon. Members will not expect from me information as to views attributed, by rumour or otherwise, to individual members of the committee from time to time during its sessions.

ARTIFICIAL SILK (DUTY).

Commander BELLAIRS: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of
the success attending the protective incidence of the artificial silk duties, he will consider taking away the excise duty altogether; and whether he will cause investigations to be made, in the case of the more valuable real silk manufactures, into the premium offered to smugglers by the existence of an excise duty as well as a customs duty.

Mr. CHURCHILL: As regards the first part of the question I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the silk duties are revenue duties. As regards the second part it is a matter of conjecture whether the existence of the excise duty is an incentive to smuggling, and the point does not admit of investigation.

Mr. MACKINDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) that it is not a safeguarding duty, but merely a revenue duty.

Commander BELLAIRS: 92.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what approximate proportion the reduction in prices in artificial silk since the Excise and Customs Duties were imposed bears to the amount of the duty; what position among the producers of artificial silk was occupied by Great Britain prior to the duty; and what position is occupied now on the figures of 1928?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There are many grades and qualities of artificial silk yarn, and the reductions in price have not been the same for all the grades, but I understand that in general they range from about 1s. to 2s. a 1b. The average declared value of imported artificial silk yarn was 6s. 4d. a 1b. in 1924, 5s. 4d. a lb. in 1925, and 4s. 5d. a lb. in 1928. These average values are exclusive of duty. In view of the varying proportion of different grades in the total import, it is doubtful whether the changes shown reflect accurately the changes that have taken place in prices of particular qualities. The Customs Duty on yarn is 2s. a 1b. and the Excise Duty 1s. a 1b. From the estimates of the weights produced which have been published for years prior to 1928, it appears that in 1924 Great Britain was the second largest producing country, in 1925 the third, in 1926 the fifth, and in 1927 the third. The provisional estimate of world production in
1928 shows that Great Britain maintained in that year the proportion of the total production attained in 1927.

Sir BASIL PETO: Does not the difference between the Excise and the Customs Duty give a definite advantage to the producers in this country?

Mr. J. HUDSON: Is this a Revenue or a Safeguarding Duty?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That has already been answered.

EX-LORD CHANCELLORS (PENSIONS).

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the total amount paid as pensions to ex-Lord Chancellors from 1st April, 1928, up to date?

Mr. SAMUEL: £9,157 15s. 2d.

Mr. HUDSON: Was any part of that sum paid direct to a hospital trust, in the way provided for by Lord Birkenhead?

Mr. SAMUEL: The question put to me was as to the total amount. I must ask for notice if the hon. Member requires further particulars.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is there any condition in connection with these payments that the applicant must be genuinely seeking work?

COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY.

Mr. WELLOCK: 70.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Communications Company has yet been formed; whether any agreements or contracts have been concluded; and if it is the intention of the Government to lay before the House details of any agreements or contracts that may be made?

Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative and to the third part in the affirmative so far as concerns any agreements or contracts for which His Majesty's Government are responsible.

Mr. WELLOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon we may expect a conclusion to be reached?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, I have no information upon the matter at present.

Mr. MALONE: 72.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the present position of the Communications Company; and what is the state of negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Communications Company?

Mr. SAMUEL: The detailed arrangements necessary to carry into effect the recommendations of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference are in process of discussion with representatives of the Dominion Governments concerned and with the cable and wireless companies. The Communications Company has not yet been registered.

Mr. MALONE: Have any discussions yet taken place with the unions concerned in regard to the conditions of employment of the men who are about to be transferred?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is quite a different question from the question on the Paper. If the hon. Member puts down that question, I shall endeavour to answer it.

Mr. MALONE: Is not the question of the conditions of the employés to be transferred very important in connection with this contract?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WELSH LANGUAGE.

Mr. JOHN: 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the recommendations by the Board of Education and the Central Welsh Board for the preservation and fostering of the Welsh language, and seeing that Welsh was taken as a subject by 90 per cent. of the pupils in some of the rural secondary schools of Wales, he will include Welsh as a subject in those enumerated in the Regulations for Civil Service examinations?

Mr. SAMUEL: Welsh is already one of the subjects which may be taken by candidates at the examination for the clerical class. But although this competition is by far the biggest conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners, only four candidates offered Welsh at the last examination. In these circumstances,
the Civil Service Commissioners do not consider that a case has been made out for an extension of the already wide schemes of examination for other classes of the Civil Service.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Mr. LEE: 85.
asked the Minister of Labour what scale of salary is being paid to the regular temporary clerks at the Employment Exchanges; whether, if posted to out-stations where there is no living accommodation, travelling expenses and allowances ate granted; and how long they have to be in the service before they are classed as permanent?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply is somewhat long, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL RFPORT.

Following is the reply:

The scale of salary of temporary male clerks at Employment Exchanges follows the general rules governing salaries of temporary staff in the public service, and is as follows:—Grade I clerks, 71s. 5d. per week, rising by annual increments of 5s. to 101s. 5d. per week; Grade II clerks, 64s. 1d. per week, rising by annual increments of 5s. to 79s. 1d. per week; Grade III clerks, 56s. 5d. per week, rising by annual increments of 2s. 6d. to 66s. 5d. per week. If temporarily transferred from the Employment Exchange where they are ordinarily employed, they are entitled to travelling and subsistence allowances. In reply to the last part of the question, promotion to permanent unestablished posts depends upon the existence of vacancies and not upon the length of temporary service.

COAST EROSION, WALES.

Sir R. THOMAS: 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any estimate of the total area of land on the coast of Wales which has been lost for economic purposes through erosion during the present century; at what points are the inroads of the sea at present most serious; and is he about to initiate any scheme, anywhere on the Welsh seaboard, to cope with this problem?

Captain BOWYER: My right hon. Friend has consulted with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The latest estimates available regarding the extent of coast erosion in
Wales are given in the final report of the Royal Commission on Coast Erosion (1911), in which it is stated that Ordnance Surveys between 1864 and 1905 showed that the loss of land in nine Welsh counties amounted to 325 acres and the gain to 3,215 acres. It is impossible to say definitely at what points erosion is at present most serious, but complaints of erosion have been received from a number of districts within the past few years. In reply to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend is not in a position to initiate any scheme of this kind. There is, however, no reason why Statutory Land Drainage and other local authorities should not be eligible to receive grants in suitable cases either from the. Ministry or the Unemployment Grants Committee as the case may be.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend that there is a definite feeling against either local or national money being expended to prevent the erosion of privately-owned land?

AGRICULTURE.

ROYAL VETERINARY COLLEGE.

Viscount SANDON: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the condition of the Royal Veterinary College; and whether his Department will take any action to secure that it should be enabled to attain to modern standards?

Captain BOWYER: My right hon. Friend has had the question of the Royal Veterinary College under review for some time, and in July last, at the request of the governing body, he appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Charles Martin to consider the general question of the reconstruction of the College and the probable cost. The Committee includes members of the medical and veterinary professions and of the governing body of the College. Eight meetings have so far been held, and some evidence has been taken. I am informed that the Committee is approaching the close of its deliberations.

CORN (MARKETING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the recommendations in the eighteenth of the economic series of reports issued by the Ministry of Agriculture may be taken as the official policy of His Majesty's. Government, especially with regard to the marketing of wheat, barley, and oats; and does he propose to take any steps in the matter?

Captain BOWYER: The recommendations to which the hon. Member refers are in the nature of suggestions which are put before farmers, manufacturers and distributors for consideration. With this end in view, the Report has been brought to the notice of all parties concerned, and my right hon. Friend hopes to arrange for some of the suggestions to be demonstrated in practical form at agricultural shows during the coming summer. My right hon. Friend sees no necessity for any further action for the time being.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these economic suggestions are part, at any rate, of the official Labour party policy with regard to agriculture?

LOANS.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications for improvement loans have been received by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and for what amount; and how many applications, and for what amount, were received in 1928 by the Lands Improvement Company?

Captain BOWYER: Loans under the Improvement of Land Acts require the sanction of the Ministry of Agriculture. The number of applications for such sanction received in 1928 from the Land Improvement Company was 485, the sums involved amounting to £227,548. One application has so far been received from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, the amount applied for being £915. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the applications received by either of these bodies unless they are subsequently forwarded to the Ministry.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 79.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Land Mortgage Corporation, established under
the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, are only accepting advances through a bank, and only upon the condition that such banks hold shares in the corporation; that applications from farmers for such advances are now being refused by Barclays Bank on the grounds that applicants are not customers of the bank; and what steps he proposes to take to meet this situation?

Captain BOWYER: It is an essential part of the scheme that applications must be put forward through shareholding banks, which include all the more important banks, except the Midland Bank. My right hon. Friend cannot intervene between bankers and their clients in individual cases; but having regard to the numerous branches of the shareholding banks throughout the country my right hon. Friend sees no reason to think that suitable applicants will encounter any difficulty.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that applicants who are customers of the Midland Bank, which is the largest bank in the country, have experienced this difficulty; did not Parliament vote this public money for the sake of tenant farmers, so that they could have, irrespective of their bank, the facilities under this Act; and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman represent to the Government that no farmers should be debarred from enjoying the benefits of this Act merely because they are customers of a particular bank?

Captain BOWYER: I understand that the banks do not ask for the removal of the whole account, but only for the removal of part of the account, in many cases, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to come between the bankers and their clients in this matter, at any rate at present.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House why the Midland Bank refuses to fall in with this national effort to help agriculture?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question on the Paper only asks about Barclay's Bank.

Mr. MORRIS: In view of the answer given, does not the attitude which the hon. and gallant Gentleman adopts have the effect of discriminating between one bank and another?

Mr. SKELTON: Is it not the case that the part of this account required to be transferred is only sufficient to cover the interest of the loans?

EGGS (NATIONAL MARK).

Mr. A. M. WILLIAMS: 78.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether there is a demand for eggs with the national mark; whether the price of these eggs has been higher than for unmarked eggs; and whether the supply of eggs with the national mark is increasing?

Captain BOWYER: There can be no doubt about the keen demand for national mark eggs. So far as can be ascertained from quotations on public markets and from private inquiry, the prices realised by national mark special and standard eggs are well above—and those of pullet standard about the same as—the prices of ungraded supplies. The supply of these eggs is steadily being augmented as additional packing stations become registered and as the packing stations develop their business. Moreover, supplies naturally increase with the approach of spring.

AERONAUTICAL INVENTIONS.

Sir R. THOMAS: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many private aeronautical inventions have been submitted to his Department during the present year; how many were exhaustively tried out; how many were not fully experimented with owing to lack of funds and/or facilities; and would he give official support to the establishment of a national central laboratory and full-scale testing station if such a project were laid before him?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As regards the first three parts of the question, the Air Ministry is in receipt of a continuous flow of inventions and ideas communicated formally and informally and of very varying degrees of promise. To supply statistics of all these suggestions and to investigate the progress made with each one would involve an amount of labour which would not in my opinion be justified. I can assure the hon. Member that every effort is made to secure for the nation the benefits of all new and useful discoveries in the advance of aeronautical science, and
provision is made in Air Estimates each year to enable the best of these to be developed on their merits. As regards the last part of the question, I am satisfied that the National Physical Laboratory and the three Experimental Establishments under the control of the Air Ministry, at Farnborough, Martlesham and Felixstowe fulfil the necessary requirements so far as aeronautical invention is concerned.

POST OFFICE.

AIR SERVICE, LONDON-INDIA (CELEBRATION).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 87.
asked the Post-master-General whether, in view of the establishment of an air service to India, he proposes to mark its inauguration by the issue of special stamps or a special air-mail envelope?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The question is receiving consideration.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Would it be worth while to signalise the new movement by a ringing of the alarm bell?

IMPERIAL BEAM WIRELESS SERVICES.

Mr. WELLOCK: 88.
asked the Post-master-General what income has been derived from the Government's beam wireless telegraph system during the current financial year to the latest available date?

Viscount WOLMER: For the period from the 1st April to the 31st December last the gross receipts of the Post Office from the Imperial Beam Wireless Services are estimated at about £358,000. The credit balance in respect of the same period (before charging depreciation or interest on capital) is estimated at about £152,000.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Prime Minister's attention be drawn to these figures of the results of a nationalised service?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if
he will be good enough to tell us what is the Government business next week?

Mr. CHURCHILL: On Monday, Local Government Bill, Third Reading.

On Tuesday, further consideration of Supplementary Estimates, commencing with the Dominions Office Vote.

On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, Local Government (Scotland) Bill, Committee, constituting the sixth, seventh and eighth allotted days.

If there is time on any day, progress will be made with minor Orders on the Paper.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) BILL,

"to restrict the opening of shops and trading on Sunday; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir Frank Sanderson; supported by Sir Herbert Nield, Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Mr. Ammon, Mr. Robert Morrison, and Mr. Craw-furd; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

SELECTION, PRIVATE BILLS (CONSOLIDATION) (JOINT COMMITTEE).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection: That they nominated the following Six Members to serve on the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Private Bills (Consolidation): Major Glyn, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. James Hudson, Sir Henry Jackson, Sir William Lane Mitchell, and Mr. Lunn.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Private Bills (Consolidation)—That they propose that the Joint Committee do meet in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room, House of Lords, on Wednesday next, at half-past Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILLS (CONSOLIDATION).

So much of the Lords Message of this day as relates to the time and place of meeting of the Committee on Private Bills (Consolidation) considered.

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

As amended, further considered.

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]

CLAUSE 107.—(Transfer of road property and liabilities.)

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the first Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton)—in page 89, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided also that nothing in this Section shall impose, or be deemed to impose, upon the county council any obligation to accept the transfer of any loan raised after the commencement of this Act by a district council without the consent of the county council, and in the event of the county council refusing to accept the transfer of any such loan then the loan shall remain a liability of the district, council concerned"—
I am very doubtful whether it is in order. It probably would alter the incidence of rating.

Sir EDMUND TURTON: May I submit, Sir, that it does not alter the incidence of rating at all? Would you allow me to state my case?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am little doubtful in my own mind, and if the hon. Member can convince me that it does not alter the incidence of rating, I will allow him to move it.

Sir E. TURTON: I am quite prepared to accept your ruling.

CLAUSE 108.—(Transfer of quarries, plant, materials, and depots.)

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move, in page 91, line 14, after the word "repair," to insert the word "of."

This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY: I beg to move, in page 91, line 28, after the word "but," to insert the words "unless otherwise agreed."
The object of this Amendment, which I believe to be a useful one, is to secure that when the events which are pro-
vided by Clause 108 take place, the county council and the district council shall have the power to agree as to whether the county council shall take over the liabilities therein referred to. May I remind the House that Clause 108 provides for the transfer of quarries, plant and things connected therewith from the district council to the county council at the request of the district council on the appointed day. Under ordinary circumstances one would expect that if a district council owning a quarry and running the business of a quarry were to transfer this business to the county council, they would transfer also the liabilities incident to that business on contracts already existing. The Clause as drawn provides that while the county council is to take over the quarry from the district council, in no circumstances shall the district council be relieved of any liability contracted in respect of any such quarries, plant, material or depots. That rigidity is a real defect, and might very well lead to the necessity of a modification of the provisions of this Clause, such as is contemplated by Clause 120.
I will give an illustration. Suppose when the county council took over the quarry from the district council, the district council had a contract for the supply of plant for use in the quarry. If the plant has not been delivered and the money under the contract has not been paid, the anomalous position will arise that the contract and the liability attaching thereto remain with the district council, and that council will, as I understand the position, have to pay for all plant that the county council would not want, and which under the terms of this Clause they would not take over. Other illustrations will suggest themselves to hon. Members. It is undesirable, when we are arranging for county councils to take over a quarry from the district council, that any liability attaching to it should in no case be taken over by the county council. If the two councils agree that the liability attaching to contracts shall be transferred with the business of the quarry, why should not that transfer be allowed to take place?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the Clause is drafted, the county council has
to take over the quarry and to pay, of course, the full value, and presumably any liability remaining with the district council will be taken account of in the price that will be agreed on between the two bodies. I am not at all disposed to resist the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend that there might be cases in which it would be desirable that, by an agreement between the various parties concerned, the liability ought to be passed to the county council. In that case, that fact no doubt would be taken into account in the agreement on the sum to be paid, but I suggest that the Amendment which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put on the Paper is not quite sufficient, because it does not say who are the parties who are to come to an agreement. I do not know what parties my hon. and learned Friend has in mind. Obviously there would be the county council and the district council, but no doubt a third party who ought to be brought in is the party to whom the liabilities are owing. Again, my hon. and learned Friend will probably agree that if permission to make an agreement be introduced, that agreement ought not to refer merely to the whole of the liabilities, but either to the whole or to any part. Some amendment of this Amendment would be necessary, but in principle I am prepared to accept it, and if my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake to use what influence I may possess to get an agreement which will carry out his idea and meet the point which I mentioned.

Mr. KENNEDY: In view of what the Minister has said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir HERBERT NIELD:

CLAUSE 111.—(Tenure and distribution of transferred officers.)

In page 94, line 16, at the end, insert the words:
(3) A transferred officer who on or before the date of his transfer by virtue of this Act shall have attained the age of 50 years and shall have completed not less than 25 years' service under any local authority or local authorities may with the consent of the Minister relinquish his office at any
time within five years after the appointed day, and any such officer who so relinquishes his office shall be deemed to have suffered a direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act.

CLAUSE 113.—(Compensation to existing officers.)

In page 94, line 29, leave out the words "having been," and insert instead thereof the words:
was on the twelfth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.

In line 30, after the word "from," insert to the words "or to."

In page 94, to leave out from the word "marriages" in line 32, to the word "and," in line 35.

Mr. SPEAKER: These Amendments are out of order, as they would increase the charge.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: On that Ruling, may I suggest that these Amendments do not, in effect, do more than seek to make a provision under which officers in this part of the Bill may retire and become entitled to pension. In a later Clause of the Bill, is a provision for the retirement of officers who are asked to undertake duties not analogous to or resembling the duties of which they have so far been in charge. In our view these Amendments would simply mean the application of substantially that principle to this part of the Bill. These things are subject to a mass of regulations and considerable elasticity in practice, and I suggest that on that ground my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendments may be allowed.

Mr. SPEAKER: Would not the effect of the Amendments, among others, be that more people would be brought under compensation than if the Amendments were not made?

Mr. GRAHAM: My sumbission is that the Bill already does substantially the same thing in another Clause. These Amendments would merely bring this Clause into line with other provisions of the Bill. I would recall that on the Financial Resolution we pleaded for the greatest possible elasticity in the consideration of these Amendments both in Committee and on Report, and the view of the Government at that time was that our plea was in every way justified, and I gather that they did not oppose it on the Scottish Measure.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The point of view of the Government is that we have no objection to this matter being put forward. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by bringing the Clause into conformity with other provisions of the Bill, but the Amendments would mean further pensions, because they would bring in a further body of people at an earlier period. That is the difficulty from the technical point of view.

Mr. GRAHAM: In a certain sense that is quite correct. In effect, you are doing these things every day under the existing Superannuation Acts, and we are doing nothing more than to bring this legislation into line. There are passages in existing Acts in which steps of substantially this kind can be taken.

Mr. SPEAKER: The point is that if these Amendments were included in the Bill, more people would be entitled to compensation. That is the only point that concerns me. It would, if it were included in the Bill, increase the charge, and therefore it cannot be in order.

4.0 p.m.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, in support of what my right hon. Friend has said, that this is not an increase of charge? It may be an acceleration of the period for which the charge is made, but all these officers are already entitled to compensation on being deprived of office or resigning. Therefore, this is simply giving the opportunity, in certain circumstances, to have that charge made possibly a little earlier.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that if these gentlemen received their compensation earlier than they would otherwise have done, that would obviously increase the charge.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: May I draw your attention to the fact that this Clause in Committee, when an Amendment to increase the charge might not have been out of order, was never debated at all, and, therefore, the only opportunity which we have of raising the matter happens to be on the Report stage. I imagine you are powerless to help us.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the only thing I have to consider now is whether the Amendments are in order or not.

Mr. KELLY: Does your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, apply to the whole of the Amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) on Clause 113? I want to refer particularly to the Amendment in page 94, line 30, after the word "from," to insert the words "or to." I ask whether your Ruling applies to that Amendment, which really makes clear what, I think, was the intention of the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: My Ruling applies to all forms of the Amendment on Clause 113. Certainly, it would have the effect of increasing the charge. I call upon the hon. Baronet the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton) to move his Amendment which is, I believe, a verbal one.

Sir E. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 94, line 42, to leave out the word "that," and to insert instead thereof the words "such net personal."
With great respect, I think that this is a little more than a verbal Amendment. Its object is not in the least to deprive any of the officers of that to which they are justly entitled, but there may be circumstances by which they have received certain emoluments or certain payments which do not strictly come within the purview of the Clause, and it is in order to avoid the necessity for any litigation or any trouble whatever with these officers, with whom we have worked so friendly in the past, that I desire to move this Amendment, to make it perfectly plain that all they are entitled to receive is compensation for the net personal loss.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment, for the very simple reason that it is the unanimous view of the largest organisation covering these officers, with a membership of 49,000 in all parts of the country, that it would be unduly restrictive. It would probably exclude other grades of officers, and might lead to cases of very great hard-
ship. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press this Amendment, because I think everything that he desires to achieve is already achieved under the existing practice where a man who puts in his claim for compensation is required to show that any expenditure incurred by him was necessary for the purpose of earning his emoluments, and the compensation which he gets is the difference between the gross receipts and that expenditure. Therefore, I think what my hon. Friend requires is covered by the present practice, and that these words which he has put down will introduce a new system which would not be understood, whereas the existing system is understood, and to that extent the Amendment would introduce some doubts which are really quite unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 114.—(Superannuation of transferred Poor Law officers.)

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 95, line 33, to leave out from the beginning to the word "subject," in page 96, line 2, and to insert instead thereof the words:
(1) Where any officer by whom the annual contributions required by the Poor Law Officers' (Superannuation) Act, 1896 (in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1896"), have been made is, by virtue of this Act, transferred to the service of any council, then, if the council to whose service he is transferred have no superannuation scheme or if, in the case of an officer transferred to the service of a council who at the appointed day have such a scheme, he gives, within three months after the appointed day, notice in writing to that council that he elects to remain subject to the provisions of the Act of 1896, that Act shall apply to him subject to such modifications as the Minister may by order direct, and shall continue so to apply to him so long as he is in the service of the council of any county or county borough until, under such statutory provisions as may be made for the superannuation of persons employed by the councils of all counties and county boroughs, there becomes applicable to him a superannuation scheme not less favourable than that provided by paragraph (a) of the next following Sub-section.
(2) As respects any such officers as aforesaid who, having been so transferred to the service of a council who at the appointed day have a superannuation scheme, do not give notice in accordance with the provisions
of the last foregoing Sub-section, the provisions of the Act of 1896 shall cease to apply and the following provisions shall have effect:
(a) in the case of officers transferred to the service of a council who have, on or before the appointed day, adopted the Local Government and other Officers' (Superannuation) Act, 1922 (in this Section referred to as "the Act of 1922"), whether alone or in combination with any other local authority, the provisions of the Act of 1922 shall apply to them while in that service.
This Amendment deals with a matter with which many Members of the House are familiar—that relating to the superannuation of Poor Law officers under their Superannuation Act, and the conditions which will arise in consequence of this Bill. My right hon. Friend the other day had a conference with the representatives of these officers, and discussed the matter with them. As I had the opportunity of saying in Committee, it is the intention and desire of the Government that these officers should be treated in a just and fair way, and, as a result of that conference which my right hon. Friend had with them, this Amendment now appears upon the Paper. Its effect is this: It allows the existing officers a right of electing to remain under the Act of 1896, even though their new employer may have a superannuation scheme under the Act of 1922 or under a local Act, but also by agreement with them—and I think it makes for their advantage—this option is limited, and the duration of the option is that if Parliament should make provision for the extension of the Act of 1922 to all counties and county boroughs which have not local Acts, and for transferability between these counties and county boroughs and those which have local superannuation Acts, then they would all come under the Act of 1922 or the local Act, as the case may be. I think the new proposals on the Paper will secure unanimity, and secure to these officers what they desire, that is, the option of remaining under the present Act, or coming under the new Act in the way I have indicated. That is a matter to be settled by the officers themselves, and I am sure the House will desire to implement the agreement which has been made between my right hon. Friend and the association concerned.

Mr. MELLER: I have been authorised to say, on behalf of a very large body of these Poor Law officers, that they appreciate very much the way in which their application has been met. The Clause as it stood, no doubt, would have inflicted very great hardship upon men who have been paying for 30 years, and some for a shorter period, on the assumption that they were to receive certain benefits from a scheme which was not only authorised by an Act of Parliament, but which, in their view, was substantiated and made secure by payment of the rates. These men have gone on for a number of years anticipating that those rights would not be interfered with, and they felt a great deal of anxiety when they saw this Clause. Although the Poor Law officers, perhaps, have not received everything they asked for—nobody anticipated that they would get it—they are deeply grateful for what they have received, and I think it is a pleasant thing to know that a body comes forward and says, "Please express our appreciation of what has been done."
There is, at least, one other thing which arises out of this Clause, and which, I doubt not, the Minister at some future time intends to carry into operation, and that is that the provisions of the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1922, shall become obligatory in those cases where there are no existing schemes. There is a very large body of men who have done excellent service in local government, and who are hanging on, unable to leave the service because no superannuation has been provided. I think it will be an improvement to the local government service, and will be rendering an act of justice to those men if the Act of 1922 is put into operation as soon as possible.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 97, line 16, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 2, page 98, and to insert instead thereof the words:
(b) in the case of officers transferred to the service of a council who have not, on or before the appointed day, adopted the Act of 1922 but who have on that date some other superannuation scheme, the council shall prepare and submit to the Minister an amending scheme for applying the superannuation scheme to those officers while in that service and for adequately protecting their rights and interests, and upon the amending scheme being approved by the Minister, with or without modifications, the
superannuation scheme shall have effect as thereby amended.
(3) For the purpose of the foregoing provisions of this Section, the expression 'superannuation scheme' includes any scheme for ensuring benefits to an officer on retirement.
This is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 115.—(Superannuation of transferred road officers.)

Amendment made:

In page 100, line 2, leave out the word "for."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

CLAUSE 120.—(Power to remove difficulties.)

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This is the Clause which has already caused considerable discussion in this House, and in the country and the Press. The House will remember that on the Committee stage we, and a number of hon. Members opposite, took occasion to object to the power which the Government were seeking to take to themselves when what the Minister thought was a difficulty in the Bill should arise by Order he might remove it, and
make any appointment, or do any other thing, which appears to him necessary or expedient
and that such Order might modify the provisions of the Bill which is now under consideration. We urged, and I think urged with some force, as consequences show, that such a power was both dangerous and unnecessary, and that when Parliament in its wisdom had set limits and bounds to a particular Act, it was in principle most dangerous, most inexpedient, to give to a Minister or Department any authority to vary that Act, even with the protection of being compelled to lay the Order subsequently upon the Table of the House. That view would appear to have prevailed to a certain extent, and I am very glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has himself recognised the folly of his ways, and, to a limited extent, has shown some signs of repentance in that some of the more objectionable powers he sought to take, namely, the powers to do any other thing or make appointments, his Amendment on the Paper will have the effect, at any rate, of deleting.
That, in itself, is a considerable triumph for the protestants against this Clause. It is a particular triumph because we were reminded by the right hon. Gentleman, as we are generally reminded when we complain of these usurpations of power on the part of the Government, that there were ample precedents for what he was doing. He cited the National Health Insurance Act as an example. I have always taken the view that this vicious practice of giving immense and uncontrolled powers to Ministers to vary Acts of Parliament started in the National Health Insurance Act, 1911, and that the Government of that day were responsible for its inception. But I have this observation to make upon that point, that although that was so, other Ministers, and particularly the Minister of Health, have shown no sign that they in any way regret that action. Scarcely a day passes without some comment by the judiciary about the powers and arrogation of the Ministry of Health. They are primarily the Department which seems to have revelled in this interference with the rights of Parliament and with the rights of the judiciary, and it is a very curious thing that nearly all the Measures which are cited by the Minister as a precedent for what he has sought to do here are Measures emanating from his own Department.
But, however that may be, I have come to the conclusion, and we as a party have come to the conclusion, that this Clause is altogether unnecessary. What is the actual position in which we find ourselves? We are told almost daily by the party opposite that the party to which I have the honour to belong is one committed to great and despotic invasions of the liberty of the individual. That theory is being propounded almost nightly at the Queen's Hall, or some other place of entertainment. But when we pass from theory to reality we find that all the protests come from ourselves, and from a certain number of hon. and learned Gentleman opposite—a few—and that in every case it is this very Government, which claims to be the guardians of the liberties of the people, which in season and out of season is seeking opportunities to interfere with the rights of Parliament and the rights of the individual. In this
matter an ounce of fact is worth a pound of theory. This year, last year in the Rating Bill, and on many other occasions, it is only the watchdogs of the Constitution, most of whom are to be found on these benches, who have prevented the Minister of Health from seeking to set up a kind of despotic tyranny under the form of law.
Why is it necessary to have this Clause at all? It is said that difficulties may arise. During the Committee stage I pointed out that there were two limbs to this Clause; one deals with exceptional areas, and I said that might be a case where power to modify by Order might reasonably be allowed for that limited purpose of the exceptional area; but I also pointed out—and in so far as the actual physical membership of this House fluctuate, from time to time, perhaps I may be permitted to point it out again—that following that apparently innocent suggestion the Clause goes on to say that if any difficulty arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Measures, these great powers of modifying the Act by Order may apply. No question of exceptional difficulty, no question of exceptional area; there is a power by Order to modify them when bringing into operation any of the provisions of this immense Bill. Exchequer grants, rating, Poor Law, superannuation—all of it may be modified by an Order at the will of the Minister in order to bring into force the provisions of the Act.
Why should not this Act be properly drafted? Why should it not be within the competence of the Minister and his advisers, if he seeks to deal with this immense mass of matter, to draw his Act in such a way that he can contemplate difficulties which may reasonably arise? Already under Clause 109 he has full power to make Orders to carry out anything necessary under the Act. These Orders may include—
incidental, consequential or supplementary provisions.
Surely those Orders should give the Minister, with a properly drawn and properly constructed Bill, sufficient power to deal with any difficulty which may reasonably arise; and if it be the fact that the Minister fears that difficulties are going to arise which are not contemplated in the Bill, I say the reason for
that can only be that the Bill is so over-laden and is so complicated, is so difficult of construction, that inevitably he fears that difficulties must arise after the Bill has been passed into law.
I do hope the House will realise what we are asked to do here. I care nothing for the fact that similar Orders were conceded in the National Health Insurance Act or any other Act. If this power has been sought and obtained in the past, it is high time it was put an end to, and any little influence I may have in this matter will always be exerted in the direction of preventing any legislation except with the consent of Parliament. But what really are the difficulties which the Minister has in mind? We have never yet heard what are the difficulties for which he seeks power to alter this legislation. I think I shall be in order if I assume for a moment that the Amendment which the Minister is about to move is in this Bill, and even then I shall ask the House to reject this Clause. Hon. Members will have noticed the effect of the Amendment. It was an Amendment suggested originally by the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson), and here it is practically in the same form. What does it do? As I say, it takes away the power to do "any other thing" or to make an appointment, but it leaves intact the power to make an Order for removing a difficulty which may arise. That Order may modify the provisions of the Act. When we look into it, can we really say that this Amendment offers any real concession at all? The Minister has only got to consider that the difficulty can only be removed by making the appointment or doing the thing, and he may make it or do it in order to remove the difficulty.
I admit that I was to some extent attracted by this Amendment, and I welcome it for what it is worth, but at the same time he is still the judge of what the difficulty is and how the difficulty shall be removed. I do not know whether this really does satisfy my hon. and learned Friend. No doubt this was a well-intentioned and well-drafted proposal, but when we come to look into it I really cannot see that anything which might have been done under the words "do anything or make any appointment" could not equally or properly be done
under the plea of removing a difficulty. I cannot understand that there is anything which the Minister could not do under the present Bill as it stands which he could not equally do under these amended words. He is the judge of the difficulty. He is the judge of the means to be taken for its removal. He is the judge of how far the Act of Parliament is to be amended by subsequent Orders of his own. One welcomes the admission of penitence, which is always a sign of grace, one likes to see the sinner come to repentance, and I am sure we should wish to give him absolution; tout while we welcome all that yet, when we look at the dry facts and the actual wording of the Clause, I just wonder whether we have made so much progress after all.
I am delaying the House in this matter because I do feel, and I think the House feels, that this is a very important question indeed. The question at issue is this, is it or is it not in the interests of the State that Ministers shall be given power to alter an Act of Parliament after that Act has been passed without any definition of the limits of their alterations? It may be said, and said truly, that difficulties will arise if the power is not given, and that it may be necessary to come back to Parliament for legislation; that in one way and another certain inconveniences may be caused to those in authority. I quite appreciate that, but the point we have to consider is whether, weighing the matter in the balance, it is not better to stick to the old rule—old, I mean, before the National Health Insurance Act—that all alterations in the law shall be defined and limited by Act of Parliament; or whether, on the other hand, the power to ease possibly some difficulty which may or may not arise is one which debars us from passing the salutary rule that all legislation should proceed by Act of Parliament? With every desire not to obstruct, with every desire to see this Bill given such effect as it deserves, I do think that when these two matters are in the balance it is better to lay down unhesitatingly the principle that Parliament and Parliament alone shall define beyond any doubt of any sort the limits within which the present law shall be altered.
We are constantly altering the law of the country, but the alterations should be defined, should be certain; and I say that
if there be precedents in this matter, and there are, apparently, in certain recent Acts, because bureaucracy is not a thing of very recent growth, although under this present administration it has got very much worse—if there be precedents, then let us call a halt. Let us say that in future we will remove difficulties in Acts of Parliament first of all by drafting them and presenting them so that the difficulties do not arise, and, secondly, that if anything in the nature of a difficulty does arise, the Minister shall come back to the House, admit his difficulty, and seek powers to put right what is worrying him or worrying the administrators of the Act. It is better to do that than that we should give power to a Minister, of his own motion, when bringing a Bill into operation, himself to amend or alter that which Parliament, with the Royal Assent, has properly agreed to be the limitations of the alteration. There are no limits here, and that is what I wish so earnestly to impress upon the House. Once a difficulty has arisen in connection with bringing the Bill into operation, once the Minister thinks there is a difficulty, he may by Order remove the difficulty, and the Order may modify the provisions so far as may appear to the Minister necessary. To the Minister! He is the judge throughout the matter. Even if this Clause be amended by the Government's Amendment, there is no single word in this Act, from beginning to end, which the Minister, if he thinks it necessary, may not modify by Order.
Finally, there is this protection, that the Order has to be laid upon the Table of this House, and there is the usual provision that within a limited period objection may be taken to it. I do not think that is a sufficient protection. It is one thing to legislate on a matter when we are all cognisant of what we are dealing with, when the whole House is concerned with the legislation, and it is another thing, a year hence, with different ideas and different matters under the consideration of Parliament, for the Minister to bring an Order to the House and ask that that Order shall not be rejected. The two things are quite different. It is significant that the Government have not seen their way to accept the Amendment of the hon. and
learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson), that the Order shall not operate until there has been a Resolution by Parliament, which, at any rate, would bring the Order to some extent into line with the position which we take here. In that form, the Order would need the positive sanction of Parliament, but, as it stands at present, there is nothing but the negative power that Parliament may decline to make the Order. I move the omission of this Clause, because I think no difficulties will arise. Of course, I pay the Minister of Health the compliment of saying that I think his Bill is watertight. This Clause has been copied from a bad Act, and, if we delete it now, I hope that we shall not see another like it.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am afraid that I can add nothing to the closeness of the analysis which the House has already heard from the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). I hope I shall not be considered offensive if I say that for a long time we have not had from the benches opposite a greater amount of wholesome political doctrine than we have just heard. I should be very glad to learn that what the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds has said represents the considered opinion of hon. Members who sit behind him. I frankly confess that one of my main objections to this Clause is the apprehension that at some remote time the hon. and learned Member and his Friends may have to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act, and, if that should ever occur, I think a very serious responsibility would fall on those on this side of the House for having conferred upon the Minister powers so extensive in character as this Clause proposes to confer. The hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds took very great credit—I do not say undue credit—to himself and his party for acting as the watchdogs of the Constitution.

Sir H. SLESSER: I specially said that I included a number of hon. and learned Members who sat on the other side of the House.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Unfortunately, I am not a learned Member, but there are some unlearned Members of this
House who feel particularly keenly on this question. The hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds did claim credit for his party, for acting as the watchdogs of the Constitution, and he referred to the Rating and Valuation Act in which there was a provision which emanated from the same quarter, and which was offensive to those who acted as the watchdogs of the Constitution. That particular Clause was successfully opposed in another place, and an exceedingly salutary Amendment was accepted after the objections to the Clause had been pointed out with great force and lucidity by learned Members in another place.
I always regretted that the credit of deleting that particular Clause could not be claimed by Members on this side of the House, and I still regret it. I know that I should not be allowed to refer except for the purpose of illustration to the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925, and I merely refer to it because I think that the action of this House in the past in regard to that Act does impose an additional responsibility upon us in reference to the Clause now under discussion. I think it would be extremely regrettable if the idea obtained prevalence that those who sit on the back benches on this side of the House do not feel as keenly as the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds in regard to the evils which he has so eloquently described.
I make another frank confession. I have felt uneasy in regard to a good many of the discussed and undiscussed Clauses of this Bill and the powers which under these Clauses are conferred upon a department of State. Again and again, I have felt uneasy fears to which, for obvious reasons, I have been unable during the Committee stage to give expression. Consequently, I feel it more than incumbent upon me when the opportunity does arise on this Clause to express the fears which I entertain. This Bill is inter-penetrated with the spirit of bureaucracy, but that spirit has reached its most eloquent expression, if a spirit can express itself in the Clause under discussion. At any rate, in this particular Clause we have bureaucracy in excelsis.
I subscribe to every word used by the hon. and learned Member for South-East
Leeds in regard to the necessity for guarding against what I look upon as an exceedingly mischievous tendency in modern legislation. I think this House has been far too careless in regard to the way in which it has given powers of subordinate legislation to departments of the State. Not once but over and over again in recent legislation this House has parted with powers which indisputably belong to Parliament alone. Legislation is one thing and administration is another. In this House we are concerned with legislation, and I think, speaking generally, that any tendency is deplorable which gives over to the administrative side of public departments functions which ought to be jealously retained in the hands of this and the other House of Parliament. For these reasons—which I have stated very briefly because the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds has stated his objections to this Clause with a skill to which I cannot as an unlearned member, pretend—I desire to support this Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: After the series of confessions to which we have just listened, it is clear to me that, although I should never have suspected it, my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) has a great deal in common with the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). Both of them seem to have a really fanatical temperament, and, once their prejudices are engaged, no questions of public convenience or the dictates of ordinary common sense are allowed to stand in the way, and the whole thing must be eradicated root and branch and no compromise must be considered. I know the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds is an authority on Scripture, and he will remember the passage in which sinners were encouraged by the statement that there was more rejoicing over one of them who repented than over the ninety and nine just men who need no repentance. If the hon. and learned Member thinks that I am a sinner he does not give me very much encouragement by his speech to show repentance.
What has happened? I confess that I have not changed my opinion in the least as to the necessity of a Clause of this kind in the public interest. Of course I realise after the powerful criticism of
some of my hon. Friends during the Committee stage, that the Clause as originally drafted went further than was necessary for the purpose I had in mind, and I have tried to modify it and bring it back into the narrow limits which were really necessary for this Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson) not merely criticised the Clause but he put forward a constructive suggestion in the shape of a carefully drafted Amendment and I thought that was something to which I should like to give the most serious consideration. The House will see that the words suggested by my hon. and learned Friend form the basis of an Amendment which I shall move later on, and I think that will represent what I understood to be the sense of the House at the time this Clause was considered in Committee.
I want to go into this matter a little more in detail because I realise that there is a very strong, and I admit a very proper feeling, that the powers of Parliament should not be evaded by giving Ministers or officials powers which would really enable them to contradict the intentions of Parliament. I sympathise with the view that it is for Parliament to lay down the law, and we do not desire to delegate our powers to somebody else. The hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds has suggested that it has always been the Minister of Health who has been involved in these unconstitutional methods, as a matter of fact the Minister of Health is responsible for most of the Acts of Parliament in which a Clause of this kind occurs. That is so for obvious reasons. The Minister of Health has to introduce Measures of this kind touching many kinds of local authorities in many different areas in the country, and it is just because the difficulties that we foresee arise out of matters of that kind that it is the Minister of Health who has to apply for powers of this kind. The Minister of Labour some time ago introduced a complicated Measure in which he found it necessary to insert a Clause of this kind. That Measure was the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920. And there too similar difficulties were likely to arise.
The hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds asks what are the
difficulties which can possibly arise and he suggested that some difficulties might arise out of that exceptional area, but there could not be any difficulty in regard to normal areas. I thought the hon. and learned Member would ask a question of that kind, and I have provided myself with a number of instances of the way in which a Clause of this kind has been used in the past. If the House will bear with me I should like to read one or two instances, because I think it is important that hon. Members should see what are the particular difficulties which arise. Those difficulties can only be dealt with in one of two ways, either you must deal with them in a Clause of this kind, or by a separate Act of Parliament. I think hon. Members will see what a great waste of time it would be if in regard to all these trifling matters such as are dealt with in this Clause the Minister had to come back to Parliament, introduce a Bill, obtain a Second Reading for it, and pass it through the Report stage and the Third Reading. As I have said, there are what the hon. and learned Gentleman called, with somewhat sinister emphasis, two limbs to this Clause, one dealing with exceptional areas and the other dealing with areas which are not exceptional. I will take the exceptional areas first. Here is a case in which a somewhat similar Clause to this has already been applied in connection with the Rating and Valuation Act. The parish of Folkestone-next-Sandgate is, for municipal purposes, part of the non-county borough of Folkestone, but for sanitary purposes it is part of the urban district of Sandgate. This is a unique case; there is nothing else like it. An Order was made providing that for the purposes of the Act the parish should be deemed to be within the rating area of the urban district council of Sandgate. If it were not possible to deal with that particular matter in this way, it would be necessary to have a new Clause to deal with it, and the hon. and learned Gentleman would say that a special Clause should be put into the Bill to deal with it; but complaint has already been made that the Bill even now is overladen with Clauses and is intolerably complicated—

Sir H. SLESSER: If the right hon. Gentleman will study the earlier Acts relating to local government and similar matters, he will find that, certainly down
to the year 1880, there are Schedules dealing with every one of this class of cases. That was the old, and I think the better, way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be necessary to have a new and very long Schedule with special provisions setting out what should be done in each particular case. Even then it is very unlikely that it would be possible to think of all of them by the time the Act was passed, and, if any were left out, it would still be necessary to pass a separate Act to deal with them, Here is another case. The parish of Dudley Castle Hill is part of the County of Stafford, and is reputed to constitute a rural district, but no district council has ever been elected. The whole parish is held on lease by the council of the County Borough of Dudley. In order to make provision for the preparation of valuation lists and the issue of precepts in the parish, it was necessary to make an Order providing that, for the purposes of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, the county borough council should be deemed to be the rating authority of the parish. Again, the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, provides that the new valuation list should come into force either on the 1st April, 1928, or the 1st April, 1929, and that the general rate should be made in respect of the period commencing on the date of the first new valuation. In one city, however, the period of the rate made in June, 1928, expires on the 30th April, 1929, and, to meet this quite exceptional case, an Order has to be made making the first valuation list in the City of Manchester, which is the city concerned, come into operation on the 1st May instead of on the 1st April. That is a quite exceptional and unique case which could not be dealt with without a Clause of this kind.
I will give some cases which are not in exceptional areas. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, certain payments had to be paid by the military authorities for qualifying seamen and soldiers discharged after the 31st July, 1920, to receive unemployment benefit when they went back to civil life. The Act provided that those payments were not to be made in respect of any person who after the commencement of the Act
was entitled to receive payments out of public funds. The date of the commencement of the Act was the 8th November, 1920. Owing, however, to the existence of a strike in the coal industry on the 8th November, 1920, those payments, which would normally have come to an end on the 8th November, were extended to the 20th November, and, as it was impossible to identify the seamen and soldiers who participated in those payments, an Order had to be made substituting the 20th November for the 8th November as the date of the commencement of the Act, because otherwise those people would have been excluded from the benefits of the Act.
I do not want to weary the House, but I should like to give one more case showing the sort of difficulties which arise. Under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, the duties of county quarter sessions in respect of rating appeals are performed by a committee of justices, of whom not less than five must take part in the determination of each appeal. It was found that in the county area of the town of Haverfordwest it was difficult if not impossible to secure that number of justices, owing to the small number of justices in the area and the fact that many were disqualified from sitting by reason of their interest as ratepayers. Accordingly an Order was made providing that in this case two justices should be competent to determine the appeals.
Those are really very trifling matters, but they are matters which could not be solved under any Act without some slight modification of its provisions. These are the difficulties which we anticipate are bound to arise in connection with a complicated Measure of this kind, and which I think justify us in asking that these powers should be given. After all, they are not powers for the exaltation of the bureaucracy; they are not powers which are given in order that the bureaucracy may interfere with the intentions of Parliament. They are merely powers which are asked for in the general public interest to get over difficulties which have not, and very probably could not have, been foreseen, but which will hold up the working of the Act in particular places or on particular occasions.
In the comments which have been made on this Clause in the Press and else-
where, the Clause is constantly referred to as though there were no time limit. That, really, is very unfair. I need hardly say that I am not accusing the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds, but it really is very unfair to speak of this Clause as though it were a, permanent Clause to go on for all time. The Clause has only a limited period of operation. It cannot go on after the 31st December, 1930. It is brought in merely for the purpose of starting the Act, and, when the hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no word in the Act which, under the Clause as it will stand if my Amendments are carried, the Minister will not be able to alter if he chooses, he really grossly overstates his case.

Sir H. SLESSER: I read the provision.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman did not read all of it.

Sir H. SLESSER: Yes, I read the whole of it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It says:
Any such Order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary or expedient for carrying the Order into effect.
That does not mean that the Minister can modify any word of the Act that he chooses.

Sir H. SLESSER: What I said was that the Minister was himself the judge of the necessity and of the means by which it was to be met. Of course, it is to be done for that purpose, but he is the judge.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman has had too large an experience of public advocacy to make the mistake of supposing that he can put the matter in that way without misleading the general public. It is all very well here. I am here, and others are here, to correct any false impression which may be given by the hon. and learned Gentleman's words, but he knows quite well that, if you tell a public audience that this is a Clause which gives the Minister power to modify any word of the Act that he chooses, it gives an entirely wrong and false impression.

Sir H. SLESSER: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that I have made
public speeches on this subject? I may tell him that I have never spoken upon it anywhere except in this House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is in public, and the hon. and learned Gentleman's words are published after he has spoken them here and, I dare say, will be used by others less scrupulous than himself. As there really is a great deal of prejudice on this matter, as well as of what I think is perfectly laudible sentiment upon it, I do hope that in criticism we shall be very careful not to overstate the case, but to realise that there is nothing that is either unconstitutional, arbitrary or dictatorial in the minds of the Government or of those who will be applying the words of this Clause hereafter.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: The Minister has spoken of the repentance which he has shown in regard to this Measure since the Committee stage, but he should realise that repentance is of no good without reformation. What he proposes is to go on with the same course of conduct, disguised, as it were, by his white sheet. As the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has pointed out, this Clause, even as amended, gives the Minister substantially the powers to which objection was taken in committee. It is no use trying to console us by saying that there is no intention to exalt the bureaucracy. There never is an intention to exalt the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is an instrument whose powers grow insensibly. The powers are always given for a good reason, but that does not make it less dangerous to see the control of public affairs insensibly departing from Parliament. That is what is happening under a Clause of this kind.
It is, perhaps, first of all essential that the law should be right, but it is almost equally essential that it should be easily ascertainable. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said on one occasion that, if any lawyer were asked what the law was on any subject, he would, if he were honest, say, "I do not know, but I think I can find out." If the law is to be overloaded by multitudinous Orders of a Minister, it is going to be harder, and, indeed, almost impossible for anyone to
find out if the Orders may be, not merely for carrying the Act into effect, but actually for abrogating and taking away parts of the Act for the time being. On this question of the importance that the law should be easily ascertainable, I think it is worth calling the attention of the House to the words of one of the most learned Judges of the King's Bench, which appear in the "Times" this morning, on a matter connected with the law of public health and local government. The case is one in which the Poplar Borough Council is concerned. With its merits no one here is in any way concerned at present, but the learned Judge said, in regard to that case:
I wonder that the local government of this country can be carried on at all.… Local government ought to be based on clear and systematic rules and regulations … instead of the most amazing, mass of intricacy that ever judicial mind had to inquire into.
Counsel for one of the parties said that that showed what a genius we have for self-government, to which the learned Judge replied that he would be sorry to deprive counsel of any of his illusions in the matter; and at the end he said that the Minister of Health appeared to have power to say what salary should be paid to a sanitary officer, that he appeared to have absolutely despotic power, and that by his fiat could destroy legislation. That is what was happening in connection with one of the Measures which are quoted to us as precedents on this occasion. It is exactly that mischief that we want to avoid by the Amendment to omit this Clause, and I suggest that in a matter of this kind the opinion of one of the most learned of those who have to carry out and administer the law should carry the very greatest weight here.
Of course, as the Minister has said, there is undoubtedly a limit of time, which lessens the mischief which this Clause would otherwise carry with it, and, speaking for myself, if there were not only that limit of time, but also a limit of space—that is to say, if these powers were only to be exercised for the limited purpose of dealing with exceptional areas, with regard to which I think the Minister made out a case of considerable weight—I should have no further objection to the Clause. It is because of the unlimited nature of the
powers that the Minister is now given that I object, in spite of the limit in point of time. As regards the subjects on which Orders may be made, there is practically no limit, and, if for no other reason than that, I think we should vote for the rejection of this Clause, because, although there is a limit as to time, it will undoubtedly be used on other occasions as a precedent for other Clauses which will not be so limited. Therefore, I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

Major HILLS: I have listened to all the Debates on this Clause in Committee with great respect, and I have listened to the present Debate, but I confess that many of the speeches have surprised me, because it seems to me that some of my hon. Friends are taking a theoretical and unpractical view of what is, after all, a practical question. But I felt no surprise at all at the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), for he was performing an agreeable task; a task that gave him a double pleasure, for he was standing up as the watch-dog of the Constitution and the guardian of the liberties of the subject—a well-known function of the Socialist party—and he was also trying to hamstring a Bill that he had not succeeded in killing. So that the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection was quite clear. But I would point out to the hon. and learned Member that I think he went a good deal too far, if he will allow me to suggest to so distinguished a lawyer as he is, in the powers which he assigned to the Minister. He said that the Minister was the judge and that the Minister could alter every Clause and every word of the Bill. Now, the hon. and learned Member knows very well that the powers of the Minister are limited in several ways and they are limited, first of all, with regard to the areas in question and then the bringing into operation of this Bill. When the hon. Member says that the Minister is the sole judge in his own case, he forgets that, if the Minister exceeds his powers and people aggrieved by the exercise of more power than the Minister has been given under the Act choose to do so, they can take the Minister before the Courts.

Sir H. SLESSER: Over and over again, in Courts of law, if the Order of the Minister is intra vires, then unless the act of the Minister is biased or unreasonable, the Courts will not disturb his act.

Major HILLS: But the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke as if the Minister could do anything under this Clause. He told us that the Minister could alter the whole Bill. The whole tenor of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that this Clause was not limited to the bringing into operation of the Act or to the special areas in question, but that the Clause enabled the Minister to alter the whole Bill.

Sir H. SLESSER: I say that, under cover of carrying into operation any of the provisions of the Act, the Minister is to be the judge of what is necessary to be done in order to bring the Act into operation.

Major HILLS: No, his powers are very strictly limited. He can modify the Act so as to bring the Act into operation.

Sir H. SLESSER: And he is to be the judge of what is necessary to bring the Act into operation.

Major HILLS: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that any Court called upon to construe a Clause of this sort would construe it very strictly against the Minister and, if they saw that it exceeded what was necessary to bring the Act into operation, the Minister would lose the case. The Minister is not the judge in his own cause.
I want to say just one word upon the general principle. I think my hon. Friends sometimes overlook two things; the complexity of administration and also the fact that there is a "No Man's Land" between legislation and administration. It is really idle to talk of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy has nothing at all to do with the question. These so-called bureaucrats are highly-trained and well-instructed people who carry on the miracle of governing this country. They have a difficult task; a task which gets more complicated every year. To revile them as bureaucrats just because they carry on this work, and must carry it on under great difficulty,
seems to me to be beside the mark. If you want to attack anybody then it is the Minister whom you ought to attack and not the so-called bureaucrats. I think hon. Members opposite must recognise that you cannot come back to Parliament for all these small variations of an Act, the principles of which are accepted by Parliament, Here, again, I do respectfully suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that no modification of the Act is possible by the Minister except such as is consonant with its principles. I am perfectly certain that the Courts would say that.
When Parliament has accepted a principle and when you get these little quite trivial difficulties that you cannot foresee, do you want to put this overburdened Parliament of ours to all the trouble of Second Beading, Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading and then the same in the House of Lords, and then the Royal Assent, for these small difficulties that are not legislative matters but are administrative matters? They really are in the field of administration and not in the field of legislation. All those difficulties that the Minister read out from the box are not matters which require Acts of Parliament to put them right. They are little snags that have cropped up in the working out of a complex Act, of which Parliament has accepted the principle. It really is ridiculous that my hon. Friends should think that each one of these is to be embodied in a special Act of Parliament and is to go through all the cumberous machinery of Parliament. It surely is the case that in the infinite complexity of life and affairs these things must arise. You cannot guard against them any more than you have done in your Act. Of the two alternatives, either the difficulty and expense and delay of a fresh Act of Parliament, for all these things, or the procedure of some such Clause as this, carefully guarded as the Clause is, I believe the House will support the Minister and will support the Clause as it is now proposed to amend it.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I am sorry that the hon. Baronet the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) is not in the House. I should have liked to thank him for his courage in seconding our Amendment, and for the reason he
adduced for doing so. His reason was that there was going to be a Labour Government which would be able to operate this Clause. I quite agree with him, and no doubt he is aware of the fact that the powers sought for under the Clause cannot be exercised after the 31st day of December, 1930. I think really that the Clause has not arisen out of unforeseen difficulties; this Clause has arisen because of the hastiness of this particular piece of legislation. Here is an enormous Bill, more or less hurriedly thrown together, which has had to undergo very drastic Amendments on Committee and on Report. Every day the Order Paper has been littered, not merely with Amendments arising out of promises made by the Minister, but out of the discoveries the Minister has made with regard to the shortcomings of his own Bill. A little later to-night we are to have more than a page full of Amendments, on this very last day of the Report stage, in order to allow the Minister of Transport to re-draft the whole of the Eleventh Schedule. My contention is that it is shoddy legislation, and that Clause 120 is the Minister's device to get over the difficulties which must arise because it is hasty and shoddy legislation.
The Minister quoted, as a precedent to be followed, the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920. That was precisely similar legislation. It was panic legislation. It was legislation passed in a hurry, and, clearly, if the Act had to work with so little time given to it beforehand, it was necessary to arm the Minister with powers to make it work in spite of itself. Had the Minister been able to give that considered amount of attention which I am sure he would have liked to give to this Bill, I am quite certain he would not have asked for these powers. Had he given to this Bill the larger portion of his time during this Parliament, and had he come here with a Measure which really did represent his matured views as a result of constant examination and re-examination, most of the difficulties—I will not say all the difficulties, because English local government is a very complicated structure—now arising would have been foreseen. Indeed, the Minister in this short space of time has already discovered some difficulties which might have been foreseen and might perhaps have been
dealt with in the body of the Bill itself. The Minister has said that the case of Folkestone-cum-Sandgate will have to be the subject of an Order. I see no reason why there should not be another schedule to the Bill. After all, the Minister does not seem to have been smitten with the desire for economy in the use of paper. This Bill extends now over 174 pages. It has 12 Schedules, and there is no reason why it should not have a Thirteenth Schedule unless the Minister is superstitious. I should have thought that in a Measure of this kind, which the Minister regards as one of great importance and which is certainly going to make very far-reaching changes in the structure and in the work of local authorities, it would have been the business of the Minister to foresee as far as possible the difficulties to which he has alluded.
As a matter of fact, although the right hon. Gentleman may only wish to deal with the case of Folkestone-cum-Sandgate, that is not what the Clause confines him to, and that is why apprehension has been caused in the minds of certain hon. and learned Members opposite. They realise that, while the Clause may enable the Minister to remove certain small difficulties in regard to the administration of the Act, the actual wording of Clause 120 goes much further than that, and it is not the very small difficulty with regard to Folkestone-cum-Sandgate, but it is any difficulty that may arise. Let mc suppose that those authorities, some of them powerful authorities, which are going to suffer under this Bill because the Poor Law area is going to be restricted and not enlarged—I mean areas like Liverpool and Tyneside and, I believe, Walsall—suppose they were to strike and say: "We are not going to put this Act into operation." That would be a real difficulty; not one of the little difficulties which the Minister has asked the House to believe that this Clause is going to enable him to deal with. Suppose that situation were to arise. Is he, by Order, going to enforce his will on these large and important, local government bodies, without any reference to Parliament? Or suppose certain other local authorities, perhaps in London, were to strike and say: "We find the operation of the Bill is going to be so adverse to us that we
do not propose to work it." The right hon. Gentleman would never take the trouble to come to the House and to explain that here was a very serious deadlock. He would operate by Order. We know the way he has treated boards of guardians. One thing I will say for the Minister of Health. He is courageous and he is not above suppressing local authorities. He got his Default Act, and in a very short space of time, without giving any real opportunity for the House to deal with the matter, he suppressed one or two. A Minister who is prepared to act like that is prepared to use his powers if similarly large difficulties arise when the Act is on the Statute Book.
It may be said that we are overstating the case. After all, it remains true that the Minister is the sole judge as to whether it is a real difficulty or not, and as to how he is going to make these people toe his particular line. That is the method of the Default Act. It is the method of repression. I have no doubt if difficulties were to arise, he would be glad enough to use his powers to the full. This Clause, as drafted, seems to confer far too large powers on the Minister in view of his case for it. He might say: "As I contemplate very substantial difficulties arising, I can imagine Liverpool may take the bit between its teeth, and I must be armed with a power to enforce the Law." But he comes and wheedles round the House of Commons and says: "I am asking for these tremendous powers, but I really do not want to use them. They are only to smack naughty little boys who may come along." It seems to me that he is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. I hope hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite who have taken objection to these wide powers that the Minister has given himself will stick to their guns and support the constitutional party. It has been said that we, and certain hon. Members opposite, are the guardians of the Constitution. At any rate, as far as this Bill is concerned, our actions have proved it, and I hope hon. and learned Gentlemen who roused the emotions of my hon. Friends when this thing was under discussion in Committee will still be loyal to the observance of the Consti-
tution and will support us in the Lobby against this Clause.

Mr. GERALD HURST: There are two reasons why I cannot support the Amendment, although I had the good fortune in Committee to be the first to raise the issue that the Amendment raises. First of all, it is clearly too sweeping. The Minister has clearly established a case whereby some measure of discretion must be vested in him, and if the Amendment were carried he would have none at all. Secondly, many of us who sympathise with a good deal that has been said as to the constitutional issue involved in the Amendment, realise that the Socialist zeal is entirely a sham. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I will put it this way. It does not carry very strong conviction. They say they are championing the cause of Parliament and our ancient Constitution, and secondly they say they are championing the cause of resistance to bureaucracy. Who are they to champion the liberties of Parliament? We all remember a short two years ago when they sympathised with a movement the whole object of which was to overawe Parliament and to substitute for it an illegal body and, as far as opposition to bureaucracy is concerned, if a system of State Socialism were ever inflicted upon this country—

Mr. BENN: On a point of Order. I presume that in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman we shall have a right to raise the whole of the circumstances governing the rebellion in Ulster.

Mr. HURST: It seems to me, also, that in their denunciations of bureaucracy, hon. Members opposite forget what would happen if a system of State Socialism were ever established. It would simply involve the enthronement of the bureaucracy which they now denounce. I except from my criticisms the late Solicitor-General, because he is a real Conservative at heart and his head remains in mediaeval England, though his feet sometimes stray in a different direction. There is no doubt that a great many Members on this side feel real apprehension with regard to the two points which are involved in this Clause. The Minister's actions under it will undoubtedly be taken upon the advice of the Ministry of Health and, although my hon. and gallant Friend has described those bureaucrats as highly-trained and well-
instructed people, we should prefer in matters of legislation that the Minister took his advice from the House of Commons. I think we have good grounds also for distrusting any repetition in these days of the dispensing and suspending power. I took the opportunity afforded by the few days that have passed since the Bill was in Committee, to read up the leading case that was decided with regard to dispensing power just before the Bill of Rights was passed in 1688, and the ground on which the dispensing power was justified by the judges of that day was that the divine right of kings entitled the King to fill up such gaps as had been left by Parliament, and that it was a necessary and proper exercise of such divine right. We do not want to substitute for the divine right of kings the divine right of the Minister of Health, and I think there are just grounds for criticising the extent, the orbit and the language of this Clause.
I am sorry it has been thought necessary to embody in it so clear a repetition of principles which this House discarded more than two centuries ago. At the same time, I realise that my hon. and gallant Friend has put before the House that there is little actual, practical danger, and I appeal to the Minister to consider whether it is not possible, while preserving the language of the Clause in the form in which it is now drafted, to incorporate into it the spirit, if not the language, of the Amendment in my name and in that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. A. R. Kennedy). It is true this dispensing power only lasts until 31st December, 1930, but it would be quite valid for the Minister on 29th December to make an Order which would remain in force indefinitely for any number of years. That is to say, although the actual exercise of the powers with regard to those Orders is limited to nine months, there is no limit whatever to the operation of Orders made at the end of that period. It does not seem to me to be an extravagant suggestion to make that there should be some time limit for the operation of these Orders, and that it would be a desirable thing to have some named period, say, that Orders made within nine months should receive the sanction of Parliament to their operation after that time. The
proposal in the Amendment is that any such Order, if it is desired that it is to remain in force for an indefinite period, should receive the sanction of Parliament before 1st April, 1931. That seems a reasonable limit to place on the very wide powers which are being given to the Minister. I hope that, while no doubt insisting that the powers conferred upon him by the Clause should be preserved, the Minister will not altogether shut, his mind to the desirability of reconciling the constitutional position which this Clause involves with the maintenance of the supremacy in legislative matters of Imperial Parliament.

Mr. W. BENNETT: It is with considerable trepidation that I venture to intervene in the Debate, both as a new Member and as a layman, when we have such highly-learned and skilled gentlemen connected with the law taking part in it. But I am not only a new Member in the House. I have been a worshipper of the House of Commons and the constitution of the Mother of Parliaments for the whole of my life, and it seems to me that there is a rather large principle involved. It is all very well to talk of it being a very small matter, but it seems to me it is time the House put its foot down. I may be wrong, but, judging from what I have seen in the last few years, there has been a growing tendency to give greater and greater power to Ministers and administrators, and that the power of Parliament is being trespassed upon more and more. I do not like taunts addressed to us about constitutionalism. I believe that we on this side are the guardians of the Constitution, and I have been given to understand that, regardless of party, all Members put the power of Parliament as their first consideration, and stand for its preservation even if they have to vote against their own party. Gentlemen on the Front Bench tell us we shall be making speeches in public on these matters, and we ought to be careful. I shall probably have to make speeches on the Bill, and I want to be right about the matter.
May I give a precedent? I have always understood that, in connection with the Housing Act and the housing subsidy, it was the intention of this House that any subsidy that was granted should go to the occupier-owner—the person who had the house built. I have seen, at Torquay,
at least 300 persons who were under the impression that that subsidy was an absolute right, and that Parliament intended them to have it. I have seen it handed over entirely to the builder who erected the houses, and refuge was taken behind an Order, and what seemed to be a letter from the Ministry, that justified the town council in handing over the whole of the subsidy to the builders. They put it in their pockets and got away with it. We are witnessing the growing power of Ministers and Departments to go behind the back of Parliament and make Orders which constitute legislation in essence. It is time that some sort of stand was made against it. One hon. Member opposite said that anyone has the right of appeal to the Courts against a decision. When a poor person in possession of a house wishes to get an Order, we are immediately told that he can carry the matter to the Courts. The County Courts will not deal with it because the amount is too great, and when you go to the High Court the person in question, who is concerned with a house valued at £400 or so, has to put down £250 before he can even attempt to appeal to the Courts. I am not sure that the Courts will thank the House of Commons for this extra work, especially if the House of Commons is in possession of the Labour party.

Major PRICE: The words of the Minister were very generous in the way of meeting the objections to the Bill, but I am afraid that the Amendment which stands in his name does not carry out what he said. He said that the Clause as originally drafted went a good deal too far, certainly further than was necessary, and that what he wished to do was to bring it back within the narrow limit which he had originally in mind when he drafted the Clause. If hon. Members will examine the Amendment and the Clause they will see that the Clause, as proposed to be amended, will read:
If any difficulty arises in connection with the application of this Act to any exceptional area, or in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act, the Minister may make such Order for removing the difficulty as he may judge to be necessary for that purpose.
The words to be eliminated from the Clause by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment are:
By Order remove the difficulty or make any appointment, or do any other thing, which appears to him necessary or expedient for bringing the said provisions into operation.
I do not think there is any difference in substance between the effect of the words in the Amendment and the words which are proposed to be left out of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman will still be able by Order to make an appointment or remove the difficulty; he can do anything provided it is put into the Order. Under the Clause, he can modify the provisions of this Measure in so far as it may appear to him necessary or expedient for carrying the provisions into effect. Surely, that was the whole gravamen of the complaint made by the hon. Members on this side who now appear to be satisfied with words that are merely an alteration of the Bill without an alteration of the power. The objections that we had to this Clause from this side are, that there have been so many precedents in the past. If this was an exceptional Clause brought in for an exceptional purpose our objection might be waived, because of the exceptional purpose, but when we start with a precedent away back in 1911 broadening out to this precedent, which will be quoted next year as the precedent of 1929, Parliament ought to cry "Stop!"
I am certain that it is not beyond the wit of the Minister to devise words to bring the Clause within what he said was his intention. He has given us examples of difficulties with regard to matters in other Acts and said it would have been absurd to go behind the backs of this House to alter them. We have to consider to-day that the Minister has taken power in many of the Clauses to make administrative Orders to carry out those particular Clauses. This Clause is an overriding Clause which gives him overriding powers. I do hope that, even now, he will see some way of carrying out what he told us was his intention. Although there is a time limit, the danger does not lie there. The danger lies in the fact that hereafter this provision will be cited as a precedent for the enlargement still further of powers given to Ministerial Departments. I have not heard a single argument from the supporters of the Clause which lead
me to alter the views which I originally held in regard to it. I agree that it is necessary to lessen the burdens that are placed upon Parliament, but there is something that is even more necessary, and that is the elimination of the risk of autocratic power on the part of any Minister to alter the provisions of an Act of Parliament which has been deliberated upon in this House, passed through the other House and made law. For that reason, I cannot support the Clause as it is drawn, and I hope that between now and the passing of the Bill into law an Amendment will be made in one House or the other to carry out what the right hon. Gentleman said was his intention.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I rise to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who has obviously been very much impressed with the arguments that have been addressed to him from all quarters of the House. When his right hon. colleague appeared to be certain that the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) had departed from his original intention, he showed much pleasure and appreciation of the hon. and learned Member's speech. What the hon. and learned Member pleaded for, I am going to ask the Minister of Health to disregard. The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side referred to the drafting of the Clause. If there is one reason better than another why this Amendment should be accepted, it is on account of the drafting of the Clause. May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the wording of the Clause? It is quite obvious that it was drafted and re-drafted about half a dozen times. The right hon. Gentleman realised, originally, that there would be difficulties owing to what he called exceptional areas. Therefore, he had a Clause drafted to the effect that:
If any difficulty arises in connection with the application of this Act to any exceptional area,
it should be made the subject of an Order. It was then pointed out to him that other difficulties would arise. Therefore, he brought in the words:
or in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act.
Then, the question arose, How could the Minister do it? Whereupon the Clause proceeds to give some explanation how he could do it.
The Minister may by Order remove the difficulty.
On that particular drafting the Clause stopped there, and I think it would have been as well if the Clause had stopped there altogether. But it was pointed out that in some cases there were delegated powers in the Bill and that the right hon. Gentleman could not remove the difficulty, but that somebody else would have to remove the difficulty. Thereupon, it was provided in the Clause that the Minister should be given power to:
make any appointment, or do any other thing, which appears to him necessary or expedient.
If necessary, why expedient? If expedient, why necessary? The whole wording of the Clause is overlaid again and again with unnecessary, useless and mischievous expressions. The worst part of it comes later.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the hon. Member know where the Clause came from?

Mr. CRAWFURD: This is a very serious matter. The Clause proceeds:
and any such Order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary.
The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) told us that there was no need to be worried. He also said that the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) was entirely mistaken in his legal view of the matter, because anyone who was aggrieved by any action taken by the Minister could go to the court and get a decision, and that any judge would give a decision to this effect, that the action of the Minister under this Clause must be in accordance with the principles of the Act.

Major HILLS: For bringing the Act into force.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The Clause says something quite different. It says:
may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary or expedient.
I would make an appeal on behalf of the learned Judges. These poor men get a very indifferent salary, and they are very hard worked; yet, under the provisions of this Bill, we are going to ask them what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman when he does or does not make an Order. We are going to ask them to say what may appear to the right hon. Gentleman to be right or proper.

Major HILLS: I think the hon. Member does not appreciate that what has to be brought into effect is the Act of Parliament.

Mr. CRAWFURD: May I again, very respectfully, point out to the hon. and gallant Member and to the right hon. Gentleman that that is not what the Clause says? It says that the Minister may:
do any other thing, which appears to him necessary or expedient for bringing the said provisions into operation, and any such Order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary or expedient.
The words, "may appear to the Minister," govern every other syllable and sentence in the Clause. It means putting an impossible burden upon the Courts. The right hon. Gentleman has, obviously, been impressed by the argument from all quarters of the House. I would appeal to him that it would be well to accept a manuscript Amendment, which I should be prepared to move, bringing the Clause to an end at the word "difficulty" on the fourth line, namely:
the Minister may by Order remove the difficulty.
If he would agree to that, it would be possible between now and the proceedings in another place to draft some words which would bring sense into a perfectly senseless Clause.

Sir ALFRED HOPKINSON: I hope that if I appear to be speaking brusquely and dogmatically when I speak frankly, it is for the purpose of saving time. There is nothing like frankness, if you desire to be brief. The suggestion has been made that the proper course to adopt would be to withdraw the Amendment and then proceed to consider the question as to what exactly shall be the shape of the Clause, having regard to the Amendments which have been put down. What seems to me to be absolutely clear is that the case has been proved up to the hilt that some Clause of this kind is necessary in order to make the Act a working Act. There is no need to go into details, but certainly statements have been made which prove up to the hilt the need for a Clause of this kind. I am not a Tory or Liberal or a Labour man, but I am an old-fashioned Whig. A Whig is a guardian of the Constitution at all costs. If there is only
one Whig in the House, I am very glad to be that Whig. When I raised my objection to this Clause originally, I had not the faintest expectation that the Minister of Health would under any circumstances be likely to make an abuse of his powers. I never dreamt anything of the kind. I am perfectly certain that under this Clause he can be trusted to do everything that is right and proper in regard to matters that require consideration. I suggested certain words, certainly on the spur of the moment, which would give just as wide powers, as the words of the original Clause. What then were our objections? They were not academic or pedantic. We felt that it was a matter of absolute necessity, more essential now than it has been for a long time, that the growing tendency to substitute the acts of a Department for Acts of the Legislature should be checked. What we were afraid of was this: that as precedents were quoted for a Clause of this kind, this particular Clause might also be quoted as a precedent.
Some such Clause as this is necessary, as a matter of business. Is it limited in such a way as not to infringe on the grounds of constitutional authority? Is it another precedent? Can it be quoted as niggling away constitutional authority? If you take it as it stands the Clause is limited in time; it is only to operate until the Bill comes into operation. It is quite futile to suggest, as is the case in one Amendment on the Order Paper, that the Clause should not come into operation until the Act comes into operation. The whole essence of the thing is that you should get the Bill into operation promptly. The Clause is limited in the matter of time, although the actual time limit is not specified. Secondly, it is limited in purpose; it is not for the purpose of overriding or altering an Act of Parliament but for carrying an Act of Parliament into effect. It is proposed in order that what we decide in this House shall become effective, although some unforeseen circumstance may arise which may require an additional provision. It is not far removed from the Rules of Court. These Orders are not actually approved and considered by Parliament, but they are issued for the purpose of carrying out an Act of Parliamnt, and if anything is done which is not for that purpose it
is ultra vires and null and void. Therefore, it seems to me to be absolutely essential that the Amendment should be withdrawn and that we should go on to consider the Clause. I Ventured to suggest words, I admit they were hurriedly drawn, which would limit the Clause to cases arising in connection with the application of the Act; that is bringing it into operation. I suggested the words:
The Minister may make such Order for removing the difficulty as he may judge to be necessary for that purpose.
There you have a statement that the Order is merely for the purpose of bringing into operation an Act passed by this House, and for no other purpose. If the Clause had stopped there it would have put an end to the difficulty, because the Minister would only be able to perform the ministerial act of bringing into operation an Act which Parliament has passed. I am sorry that the Amendment on the Paper means that the Clause will still include the words:
And any such Order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary or expedient for carrying the Order into effect.
I hope those words will be dropped. They are really no good. You have all the power necessary if you stop at the word "purpose," in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. Why go on and say that he may modify the provisions of the Act? That is quite unnecessary. It is rather like a red rag to us constitutionalists. They do no good. If the Clause stopped at the word "purpose," I think the House might unanimously pass it. I acknowledge the patience of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. He has won the admiration of all hon. Members, and it is not for the want of any help on his part if we have not been able to understand and grasp the many complications of this Measure. I suggest that the Amendment might be withdrawn, with general consent, and then that the Clause should provide that the Minister shall make an Order carrying out in detail what the House has determined in principle, dropping out those words which are so terrifying to some of us and which are so unnecessary. If we stopped at the word "purpose" I think we should all be unanimous in agreeing to the Clause.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I should like to add my voice, briefly, in protest against the Clause as it stands, and to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make some alteration in it. I really cannot think that every hon. Member has read the Clause carefully enough to understand what it means exactly, and at the risk of some repetition I am going to read it again, leaving out irrelevant or immaterial parts. It says:
If any difficulty arises…in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act, the Minister may … do any other thing, which appears to him necessary or expedient for bringing the said provisions into operation.
What limitation is going to be imposed upon the right hon. Gentleman if those words are passed into law? I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is going to quote a precedent against us. He asked the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) if he knew where the Clause came from. I submit that that is not relevant at all. In those days a great many Acts were passed which would not be carried in the House to-day, and hon. Members and right hon. Members of every party must take their share of responsibility for those errors. We are responsible to future Parliaments for what we do to-day, and if this Clause is left ass it is there is no limit to what the Minister may do. I received a letter from a constituent of mine this morning enclosing a stamped address—I am glad to pay a tribute to the consideration which my constituents always accord me—to this effect:
Dear Sir, I had an argument. Can you tell me if the provisions of D.O.R.A. are Still in force or not?
I am sending the letter to the Home Secretary to answer. If this Clause is passed as it is then, in view of the wide field which the Bill covers, there are very few things which the Minister could not do by Orders. It is true that any aggrieved person can go to the Courts of Law and have an Order set aside, but if the Minister has wronged that person he can quote this Clause as a protection, and I doubt whether the aggrieved person could secure indemnity from the right hon. Gentleman. He may arrest a recalcitrant town clerk who refuses to carry out the provisions of the Act.
The Clause has financial aspects which should be fully considered by this House
before they are passed. The other day I raised the case of the Secretary of State for Air who has entered into an arrangement with a private company, which presupposes the expenditure of certain sums of money for which the approval of the House will be necessary. That has been done repeatedly by various Departments in the past, and it is time it was stopped. This Clause gives immense power to the right hon. Gentleman. It says he may remove any difficulty or make any appointment. He can double the number of appointments and salaries paid under the Bill. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is going to concede some points, but the fact that this Clause should have passed the Parliamentary draftsman, and should have been approved by those responsible for these proposals, reflects the greatest discredit on the Minister for Health and those who advise him, and I hope the House will give its expression to that view before the Clause is passed.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY: I am afraid that the suggestion put forward by the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson) is not a practical one. If the Clause stood without the words referring to the modification of the provisions of this Bill, it would not be open to the right hon. Gentleman to modify the provisions of the Bill by any Order he might make, because he would be doing something which would be ultra vires. If, for the purpose of bringing this great Measure into operation it is necessary for the Minister to have temporary urgent powers for modifying certain provisions, it is equally necessary that these powers should be explicitly stated in the Bill. We have to face this position. On the one side there are those who affirm the principle that Parliament alone shall modify the terms of any Statute. On the other hand, you have those who, like myself, are willing to consider expediency. The issue may be said to be perfectly clear-cut. If the Amendment is pressed to a Division, the House has to elect whether it takes its stand upon the principle and will not recognise the necessity of providing some machinery which will enable the Bill to be brought promptly into operation, and face the consequences, or, on the other hand would
desire to meet the situation in a reasonable manner. Secondly, no one in this Debate or in previous Debates has suggested that on the previous occasions, when a Clause such as this has been in operation, there has been any abuse of it. In these circumstances, in considering this Clause and the objections to it—objections clearly and sincerely and deeply felt in some quarters—I have endeavoured to meet the situation by proposing words which could be added to the Clause and secure this effect—that while under the provisions of the Clause the Minister would have the powers which he says are really necessary, those powers would be modified and subject to the important limitation that within a limited time the modifications in the terms of the Act which he finds it necessary to make should themselves be embodied within the terms of an Act of Parliament, so that at a later date it would be possible to see within the terms of a Statute what modifications of this Statute had been made. That is the object of an Amendment which I have drafted and which appears on the Paper.
If that Amendment of mine were accepted in substance, the position would be that, while the Minister would have power to make the modifications which were necessary or which appeared to him to be necessary, those modifications would operate for a certain length of time but would not be permanent unless before 1st April, 1931, they were embodied collectively in a Statute. It would then be practicable for anyone to raise an objection to any modification, but if, as one may anticipate, the modifications had been made for good reasons, there would be no difficulty in passing such a Measure through this House. Unless some limitation of that kind is made, I can see that the objection of those who take their stand on principle will remain. When it comes to a test as to how one is to vote on the present Amendment, I, for one, with reluctance will take my stand on the side of expediency, because, while principle is involved, it is manifestly wrong to stand on that principle alone and be blind to-the necessities of the case. In those circumstances I shall support the Clause.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: I want to say only a few words, and I say them
with some hesitation, because I was unfortunate enough not to hear the speech of the Minister of Health. I say them also with hesitation, because my right hon. Friend's conduct of this Bill has convinced me that his intentions in drafting the Bill as it stands are merely to carry out what the House desires, and to do so in as quick and convenient a manner as possible. But I cannot, as a lawyer, let this Clause go through without pointing out just one thing that occurs to me and that possibly the Minister may not realise. Let me read the Clause on the supposition that the Amendment proposed by the Government is accepted. The Clause will then read:
If any difficulty arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act, the Minister may make such Order for removing the difficulty as he may judge to be necessary for that purpose.
That, really, is a most drastic power to exercise. Observe that it does not say, "If any difficulty inherent in this Act," or, "to be found in the terms of this Act." It says that if any difficulty arises in connection with the bringing of the Act into operation, then the Minister may make such Order as he thinks fit. In practice that means that, supposing one of the Clauses of the Act is not accepted with gladness—

Sir K. WOOD: My hon. and learned Friend must read the remainder of the Clause:
and any such Order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary on expedient for carrying the Order into effect.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I quite agree, and under this power the Minister can delete the whole of the Section and draft a new one in its stead. There is nothing to prevent him doing that. Surely that is not the intention? I do not see that the addition which the Parliamentary Secretary has just quoted makes any difference at all. If the Minister finds that for successfully bringing the Act into operation one of the Sections is not appropriate or is not accepted, he can delete the whole of it and draft a new one in its stead. Logically, he could, in an interval of time, redraft the whole of the Act and take out all the provisions and put in new ones. Of course, that is an extreme and ridiculous supposition, and nobody would
suppose that the Government are likely to do anything of the kind. But you cannot point out the real effect of the provisions of this Clause unless you lead it to these ridiculous conclusions. If it is any consolation to the Parliamentary Secretary, whose head appears to be shaking somewhat ominously, I will read the whole of it:
If any difficulty arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act, the Minister may make such order for removing the difficulty as he may judge to be necessary for that purpose, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect.
Of course, he will modify the provisions of the Act if he deletes some of the Sections and puts in a new Section instead. How can the words at the end of the Sub-section alter what I have said? They are:
Provided that the Minister shall not exercise the powers conferred by this Section after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty.
I can see no answer to the proposition that I have put forward. I am sure that what I have stated is not the intention of the Minister. I make the point, not with the desire to delay the passing of this most badly needed Act, but in order that the wording of this Section may be changed, and so that it shall not lead to the ridiculous results that I have pointed out.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): My hon. and learned Friend has raised a point of construction which, I think I am right in saying, has not occurred previously to anyone, however ingenious. If it has occurred to anyone, hon. Members have been singularly backward in presenting it.

Captain GARRO-JONES: It was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) in his speech.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can only suppose that the unwillingness of hon. Members in presenting this construction was the result of a doubt as to whether the construction could be a sound one. If I understood my hon. and learned Friend aright the suggested case is this: A local authority or some population in a district finds the provisions of
the Act unacceptable—to use my hon. and learned Friend's words—and the Bill is unpopular in some districts. The suggestion is that the Minister then, under this Clause, can treat that as a "difficulty" that arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of the Act.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: "If any difficulty arises."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am bound to deal with that suggestion. The criticism is that, in the case that my hon. and learned Friend has supposed, that is a "difficulty in bringing into operation the provisions of this Act," and the Minister may thereupon say, "This is very inconvenient and very troublesome; it is giving a great deal of work to my officials at the Ministry"; and he may say, "Let us make an Order," and he can write out a new Act giving the Minister power to commit these obstreperous town councillors to prison, or something of that sort. I say to my hon. and learned Friend, for whose learning I have great respect, that that is a fantastic interpretation.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I said that the Minister could delete the Section.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That the Minister may delete the section which is unpopular. That is a similar suggestion. I can only tell the House that I believe it to be a fantastic interpretation of the Section. I do not believe that to be a "difficulty" at all. The "difficulty" that is aimed at in the Section is what may be called a physical difficulty, that I he Minister finds that the intention of Parliament as expressed in the provision of the Act cannot be put into operation because there is some actual difficulty in the state of the law or the legal organisation of some district, for instance. My hon. and learned Friend has presented his construction. I can only tell the House, with all the respect that I feel for him, that I do not believe that that construction would hold water for a moment. Just visualise the Minister being brought into a court of law, and through his counsel, a Law Officer, saying that he found that the particular Section was not liked in a particular part of the country, and that, therefore, he had cancelled the Section. There is not a single
Judge on the Bench who would listen to that interpretation of the word "difficulty" and say, "We think that Parliament intended that the Minister should have power"—

Miss WILKINSON: That is in the present provision. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that any Law Officer of the Crown would put it so crudely? Might he not wrap it up in much more delicate phrasing which would induce the Judges to accept it?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Hon. Members will welcome the admission that even the most ridiculous proposition could be put in such an attractive way as to commend itself to the Judges on the Bench. The hon. Lady pays a tribute to the members of the Bar at the expense of members of the judicial Bench, who must be credited with some common sense in applying what Parliament has enacted. Apart from criticism of the construction which my hon. and learned Friend has suggested to the House, I think that the Minister has overwhelmingly met the case. There may be a variety of opinions as to whether any particular drafting of the Clause is preferable to that which has already been proposed. Upon that I beg leave to say only that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has really done what the Committee on a previous occasion suggested that he should do. After the Minister proposed his Clause the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson) made a proposal, and various Members in different parts of the House said, "Cannot the Minister accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities?" My right hon. Friend has accepted the proposal, which was made and backed up in all parts of the House.

Major PRICE: Does the learned Attorney-General suggest that the wording of the Amendment of the Minister of Health in any way limits the power that is given to him in the original draft of the Bill?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Perhaps my hon. Friend has not been listening to me during the past few moments. That was not the point that I was making. I was suggesting to the House that the Minister found that the Clause in its
original form was not acceptable to the Committee of the Whole House when the Bill was previously under consideration; that he proposes to amend it in accordance with the suggestion which was then made and accepted in all parts of the Committee, and that it is asking the House to do a rather unreasonable thing now to start considering it afresh. I rose for the purpose of dealing with the interpretation of my hon. and learned Friend, and I venture to make these observations in order that the House may realise that what it is now being asked to do is to go back upon what was sought to be done in Committee, when hon. Members urged upon the Minister the reasonableness of accepting the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities. That proposal in substance is what the Minister now asks the House to adopt.

Mr. BENN: I did not understand from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson) that he is at all satisfied. I understood his suggestion to be that the Minister's Amendment should be adopted and that these other words should be omitted. The Attorney-General having devoted himself to knocking down a bogy—which no one on this side set up—about some impossible case, proceeds to say to the House, "Do not, for goodness sake, start moving Amendments now." But what is the House for if not to move Amendments? Have we sunk so low that the Guillotine is not merely to execute us at intervals, but to deprive us, even of the right to live. I want to dispel the impression which the Parliamentary Secretary has sought to create by presuming that this Clause has its origin in the National Insurance Act of 1911. It is not for me to presume to defend Gentlemen who are so well able to defend themselves as the hon. Gentleman on the Liberal benches.

Mr. CRAWFURD: You were there; I was not.

Mr. BENN: That is so. I certainly voted for this Clause in 1911, but, as a matter of fact, the original Clause is in the Irish Local Government Act, 1898, which was passed by a Conservative Government, and this fact was pointed out by us when the same Clause was attacked with great vehemence and cogency by the
representatives of the party opposite in 1911. I would like to remind the House of a very authoritative opinion upon it—that of the present Secretary of State for War. I propose to quote the right hon. Gentleman verbatim et literatim:
I submit it is quite unnecessary. They ought to have powers to carry out the Act as it leaves this House but not to modify it.
The Clause then referred to Commissioners where, in this case, it refers to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
If these words are retained, the Commissioners will have power to make an Order modifying the Act, and they may carry out that Order. That, to my mind, is giving them power to legislate. Whether the Government intends to place a time limit on the powers or not, I hold that these words ought to come out.…I want to give them power to carry out that which Parliament has enacted, and not power to carry out something which they think Parliament ought to have enacted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1011; cols. 2026–2027, Vol. 30.]
I do not know what deference the Parliamentary Secretary will pay to a Member of the Cabinet, but that is the considered view of the present Secretary of State for War upon this Clause. It is true that I voted for the Clause in 1911. It is quite easy to throw these charges and countercharges backwards and forwards, but the real question is whether it is possible, with the enormous mass of legislation which we have nowadays, to retain effective Parliamentary control and it is to that question I propose to address myself. Take the history of this Bill. In the first place the House of Commons has never approved this Bill in detail. It supports the Ministry which introduced the Bill, but no one can pretend that there has been any effective examination of the Bill in detail by the House of Commons. I do not know that it could have been done with a Bill of this size, unless we devoted a long Session to it. But the Government have not attempted to do it, Secondly, we are working under a Guillotine which limits stringently empowers to interfere. Take the case of the payment of officers, a question which interests many people on all sides of the House. We could not move an Amendment in Committee because of the Guillotine. We could not move it on Report because it would have been out
of order as increasing the charge. Nor could the Government move it on Report. Indeed, the Government themselves were "caught out" last night when they attempted to move an Amendment which the Guillotine permitted but which Mr. Speaker forbade because it was out of order. In view of these facts, it is obvious that we cannot pretend to have anything like effective control of the legislation which is being turned out by the House.
We go one step further and we come to the "power to remove difficulties" which is almost a necessary corollary of a complicated piece of legislation like this, and we find our grip is still further weakened. It is true that these Orders, when made, must be laid on the Table of the House. I do not know if I am right in supposing that, even there, that form of control has been somewhat curtailed in this case. The usual form was that during 21 days a humble Address might be moved, amending or anulling the Order, but I notice in Clause 119 that we are only to have power to annul and not to amend. We must take the Order as the Minister drafts it, or leave it. There seems to be great doubt as to what are the powers of the Minister under this Clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) says that these powers are considerable—though he never went to the grotesque lengths suggested by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General, on the other hand, thinks that the powers are inconsiderable and do not matter. The only way to settle it is to ask a few questions.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did not suggest that. It is a matter of opinion as to whether they are considerable or inconsiderable. I was merely dealing with the suggestion that unpopularity is a difficulty.

Mr. BENN: It is a great difficulty with the Government at the present time. Recent news which seems to have leaked into the House suggests that it is their chief difficulty. That does not prevent us from asking a few questions. For instance, supposing the difficulty in carrying out the Act is the formula, will the Minister be allowed to adjust the formula. [Interruption.] A little
muttering does not deal with what is an important Parliamentary point. Is it possible for the Minister to say that he will take a larger percentage, or take into account more women, or adjust the formula in any other way, because he finds a difficulty in carrying out the Act in regard to it? Supposing it is a question of adjusting some of the numerous and complicated financial relations between the central government and the local authority, would the Minister have power to carry out what, in his view, was the Act of Parliament and make an order adjusting those financial relations? I do not know if I am entitled to an answer on these points. I can only put questions and other people must decide whether they are worth answering or not. They are questions which will trouble some local authorities and will trouble very much people who believe as we do that we ought to make the best use possible in modern circumstances of the Parliamentary machine.
This sort of thing—this relaxation of the grip, this practice of making it easy to vote for a big Guillotine, this "power to remove difficulties" Clause and so on—is a habit which is now confirmed by the Government. It is a habit which will not stop there. I pointed out on the Guillotine Resolution itself, that the Government are making the road easy for another Government which, at some early date, may take its place. Let us take a suppositious case. Perhaps the Attorney-General will think it grotesque but I will suggest it to him. Take the case of a Finance Bill. There will be a highly contentious Finance Bill proposed in this House before long. Supposing that the first thing done is to erect a Guillotine so that the matter has to be passed whether the House wishes it or not, and, supposing there is put into the Finance Bill a Clause modelled on this one, giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer "power to remove difficulties." That will not be very palatable to some people, but that is the road on which we are travelling. As far as I am concerned, I would like to see the maximum Parliamentary control retained. I believe in the House of Commons. I aim proud to think that, in my small way, I am a House of Commons man. But there are difficulties and the Minister is doing nothing to help. He is not meeting the very reasonable speech of the
hon. and learned Member for the English Universities. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has!"] He has not met it. Let the hon. and learned Member speak for himself as to whether he is satisfied with the Amendment or not. It is open to the Government to go to a Division and to carry this Clause, but it is a dangerous thing to do, and it may have consequences very unpleasant for hon. Gentlemen opposite at a later date.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I do not intend to follow those who have spoken about the general principle, which I think most of us want to safeguard, namely, that Parliament should retain its control over legislation. The Minister by his Amendment has gone a long way to meet the objections which were raised to this Clause, but I venture to suggest that he has not gone far enough. A few moments ago the Parliamentary Secretary read a part of the Clause, but he inadvertently left out certain words. He read the last portion of the Clause in this way:
And any such Order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary for carrying the Order into effect.
The right hon. Gentleman forgot the words "or expedient" which occur in the Clause after "necessary." If we put into the Clause the Amendment which the Minister has put down, but retain in the last portion of the Clause these words "or expedient," we leave the Clause still open to a great many of the objections which have already been taken to it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have handed in a manuscript Amendment to omit the words "or expedient."

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I am very pleased to hear that announcement It indicates why the Parliamentary Secretary left out those words though one would not have taken the right hon. Gentleman's intimation in that way. It seems to me that in order to keep the power of the Courts to supervise what is done by the Minister—in order to save that power from being usurped—we should also leave out the words "as may appear to the Minister necessary," and substitute "as may be necessary." Thus you would get the principle of the Amendment which the Minister has put down, namely, that the Order made
should be limited to removing difficulties; that it should be such an Order as is necessary for that purpose, and that, when he finds it inconvenient to carry out such Order without modifying the provisions of the Act, the power to modify should be interpreted strictly. There should only be such modification as is necessary to carry the Order into effect and not something which will be left again to the Minister's discretion because that means a double discretion which is undesirable and constitutes a very great inroad upon the powers of Parliament.

Miss LAWRENCE: For the first time in these Debates I have found myself a listener with sympathy to hon. Members opposite, I listened to what was said with regard to the Constitution, and bureaucracy, and the danger of extending, the powers of Ministers at the expense of the House of Commons, and I felt it was all unanswerable, and yet the thought that continually arose to my mind was how essentially convenient such a Measure as this might prove to be in the near future. It reminded me of what the schoolboy said, that "the abomination to the Lord" is "a very present help in trouble." This Clause may prove a help. I visualise Members who are likely to occupy the benches opposite and the office of the Minister of Health and who might be intending to go through this Measure with a blue pencil in order to remove difficulties. How very much one could improve this Measure if one removed such things as might appear to one to be unnecessary.
One could turn the Bill inside out. There is the difficulty, which we are going to discuss in a partial way, of the coastwise shipping. It is a very great difficulty when we penalise one class of exports as against another, and what could be more pleasant than slightly to alter the Clause so as to remove that difficulty? Then we could remove the difficulties with regard to mineral railways and with regard to voluntary health societies and many others; and when we come to the financial Clauses, to the formula and the complications and difficulties connected with it and with the block grant, they could all be removed by a Minister, It might appear to a new Minister desirable to remove that difficulty of the formula and, until he could
prepare a new Measure, simply to hand back to the localities the de-rating of which they had been deprived. When I feel how short Parliamentary time is and how very convenient it may be to put large portions of this Measure into cold storage, if I go into the Lobby to vote against the interests of my own

party, I shall nevertheless be extremely grateful to those zealous Members opposite who will have kept so precious a power in the hands of the Minister.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'by,' in line 38, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 119.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 103, to leave out from the word "may", in line 38, to the word "and", in line 41, and to insert instead thereof the words:
make such order for removing the difficulty as he may judge to be necessary for that purpose.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) who has an Amendment in line 38—after the word "Order," to insert the words "approved by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament"—wishes to move it; if so, I will save it.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not going to make any explanation of his Amendment?

Sir K. WOOD: I thought it was quite unnecessary to do so, because my right hon. Friend had dealt with the matter in the course of his speech in the discussion on the whole Clause. What we have done has been, as I think most hon.
Members followed, to make the Clause read:
If any difficulty arises in connection with the supplication of this Act to any exceptional area, or in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act, the-Minister nay make such Order for removing, the difficulty as he may judge to be necessary for that purpose.
Then it goes on:
and any such Order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary or expedient for carrying the Order into effect.
In a moment or two I shall move another Amendment to leave out the words "or expedient" in that last paragraph. What we have done in amending this Clause has been with the object of meeting the wishes of the Committee on the subject, as was fully explained just now by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Minister had explained the exclusion of these words, but
he has not explained in the least the difficulties of the first part of the Clause. Everything that has been said about that still stands. I am prepared to admit that the Minister's power will be whittled down by this Amendment and that he will not be able to go about the world making appointments and doing anything that he likes. That is all to the good. Under this Amendment, the Minister can only make an Order where he thinks it is necessary, and not merely because it is expedient. What has been said by many hon. Members in criticism of the Clause, however, still remains. A good deal of the Minister's speech was devoted not so much to the question of appointments, and the things that he might do, but to his defence of what led to the Clause being put into the Bill. His reason was that there were certain small difficulties that had to be removed, and a good deal of the subsequent discussion ranged round the allegation that as the Clause is drafted the Minister's power stretches far beyond that. This Amendment does nothing to meet that point.
The Clause still provides that if any difficulty arises, of whatever kind, the Minister can make an Order, and can proceed under that Order to compel obedience to the law. That being so, the Minister has not met the criticisms that were made both in Committee and this evening on this Clause. If he would define the difficulties, or limit the kind of difficulties to those of which he has given illustrations, it would be an Amendment of substance which we would consider favourably, but these words "if any difficulty arises" remain unsatisfactory and give the Minister powers which he ought not to need. Therefore, we cannot agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that in this Amendment he has met the wishes of the critics of this Clause.

Mr. KELLY: I cannot see even the whittling down that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) can see. I cannot see that it whittles down the Minister's power at all. It is still open to him to make an Order for removing a difficulty, whatever the difficulty may be, as he may judge necessary for that purpose, and he has still power in that Order to modify the provisions of the Bill. Even after we
have deleted the words "or expedient," I cannot see that it will whittle down the powers which he has under the original words. I can well understand the fears of the Seconder of the last Amendment, who realises that there will be a new Minister of Health in June next.

Mr. MORRIS: The more this Clause changes, the more it remains the same. The really objectionable part of it, which will remain after the words have been inserted, will be the passage:
any such Order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary or expedient for carrying the Order into effect.
The Minister usually has power to make Orders under various Acts, but those Orders are for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Acts under which the Orders are made. The Orders here, however, are quite differently made. This Clause does not mean that the Minister may make an Order for carrying out the provisions of the Act, but for modifying the provisions of the Act and that may include in effect nullifying certain provisions of the Act. That is a totally new power for the Minister. It is one thing for the Minister to come to the House and ask the House to give him powers by an Order to carry out certain provisions under an Act, but to ask the House to transfer powers to him to modify the provisions of an Act which the House has passed cannot be justified on any constitutional grounds.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson), the words which he proposes will come in the words proposed to be left out by the Amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. I do not think, therefore, that I can save his Amendment, as it would not come in if the present Amendment were accepted. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member had better speak now if he wishes to do so.

Mr. ATKINSON: The insertion of the words which I suggest after the word "Order," in line 38, would not read very well, but the idea is there, and I will deal with it as a criticism of the proposed Amendment. It must be recognised that all sorts of difficulties may arise in carrying out this Bill, and getting rid of those
difficulties may very well involve some alteration in some of the provisions. I admit that where these alterations involve some modification of the provisions, and in other words, involve repealing what this House has done, the House ought to retain control over it. The objectionable part of this Clause is that if any difficulty arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of the Act, an Order may be made to modify the provisions of the Act. In other words, if there be any difficulty about it, a provision may be modified, and there is no limitation whatever to the extent to which the provision can be modified. I submit that as a matter of principle there ought to be some machinery by which the House can take control of that operation. It might involve bringing in an amending Bill and passing it through both Houses of Parliament, which is a long operation which takes time, and time very often is not available; but the operation which I suggest, that an Order should not be effective until it has been approved by a Resolution of both Houses, can take place in the course of an evening.
The supposed safeguard contained in the last two lines of Clause 119 is very inadequate. Suppose that this emergency or difficulty arise when the House is not sitting, and an Order be made which at once becomes operative. Although when Parliament sits again this Order can be laid on the Table of the House, and the House can declare it void, they cannot undo what has been done. Therefore it an Order has been made which has repealed or varied some of the provisions of the Act, and has been acted upon, the House have no means of putting that right. They can only put it right by passing another Act of Parliament, which would have to be retrospective, a proceeding which is always open to objection. Supposing the difficulty arise when the House is sitting. Is it any hardship to ask Parliament to approve the proposed Order before it becomes effective? Again, suppose that the difficulty arise when the House is not sitting. Then you have to weigh up the objections on either side. As a matter of principle, are we, if a difficulty arise in carrying out any legislation when the House is not sitting, going to delegate
the legislative powers of the House to some Minister?
This is a very dangerous principle, and one cannot quite see why or how a difficulty might arise which demands such immediate relief or attention that it cannot wait until the House sits again. These difficulties do not arise in a day; you see them coming, and points are raised which can hardly be of very great urgency; and I suggest that the wiser of the two courses is to put in a modification of this provision in the reasonable way which I suggest. It would relieve the Minister of the difficulty of having to ask for an amending Bill, and everybody would agree that that would be all to the good. At the same time, it would retain the control of Parliament over any proposed modification, whereas such wide powers as are given in the Clause mean that there is no limitation of the extent to which provisions may be modified, and it becomes very important that a matter of that kind should not be effective until the House has expressed their approval. I agree that it might be said that the difficulty may arise when the House is not sitting, but the House seems to be always sitting for a great part of the year, and the small objection to the postponement of the decision of the House for a few weeks cannot outweigh the very serious objections to setting up the precedent of permitting a Minister to have such wide powers as include an unlimited modification of almost every provision in the Bill without the House retaining control.

Mr. WITHERS: I should like to support the views of the hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson). When the matter was in Committee and the Amendment was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson), I and a number of other Members took it that his Amendment would be in substitution for the rest of the Clause, and that that would get rid of the words "modify the provisions of this Act." If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Altrincham can be accepted, I should support it.

7.0 p.m.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I am still unrepentant and cherish the hope that the wording of this Amendment may be altered. It still seems to me that the result of the Amendment, if it be accepted in its present terms, will be
in the words: "If any difficulty arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act." They will give rise to the queston of as to what sort of difficulty can occur in bringing the provisions of the Act into operation. It might be that somehow they do not work, and that they are not applicable, or perhaps that they are not being obeyed by some section of the community, and that there is a difficulty in bringing them into operation. Then this Amendment, as it stands now, would undoubtedly give the Minister the power to modify the provisions of the Act by deleting the Section altogether if he likes. What is to prevent him from saying: "Well, I have difficulty in bringing this Section into operation, so I will take it out. It is true that by doing so I am modifying the provisions of the Act, but this Amendment gives me the power to do so." Observe that the end of the Section only says this:
For bringing the said provisions into operation, and any such Order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary or expedient for carrying the Order into effect.
It does not say: "so far as may appear to be in accordance with the Act to be necessary for carrying out the intention of the Act." The Order may be made to delete a Section. That cannot be intended. I know it is a matter of words which can be put right. I do not think anybody can deny, leaving out of consideration what the intention of the Act or of the Orders is for the moment, that, as a strict interpretation of the letter of the law, this Amendment, if passed, would give the Minister power, not only to modify the provisions, but to make an Order deleting a Section altogether and even to put in a new Section if he likes. That cannot be intended.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) says he is of the same opinion still, and I have the misfortune also to be of the same opinion still. When he and I are not in agreement, I am afraid it is necessary to trouble the House once more with the reasons I have for thinking my view is the right one. I will deal with the other matter afterwards. My hon. and
learned Friend suggests that, when a difficulty occurs in bringing the provisions of the Act into force, the Minister may, by a stroke of the pen, remove the provisions. That overlooks that the Section says that, if any difficulty arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act, the Minister may by Order remove the difficulty. It does not say that the Minister may remove the provisions. There is all the difference in the world. The object of the Clause is to say that the Minister may do that which is necessary for making the Act apply. The first sentence which I do not think my hon. Friend criticises, is that dealing with the application of the Act to any exceptional area. Quite obviously the Minister cannot do anything to alter the Act, though he may have power to make the application of the Act effective. It is the second sentence which says that the Minister may remove the difficulty that occurs in bringing into operation any of the provisions of the Act that is criticised. The Clause seems to me to say that the Minister may remove the difficulty so as to bring into operation the provisions of the Act, and it does not say that the Minister may get round a difficulty by doing away with the provisions of the Act.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: If those were the terms of the Amendment, I would approve it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Those are the terms of the Amendment because the words which the House has already passed are:
If any difficulty arises…in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act
and it goes on to say that the Minister may make such an Order as he may judge to be necessary for that purpose. That is to say, for bringing into operation the provisions of the Act and not for abolishing the provisions of the Act.

Mr. MORRIS: What meaning does the hon. and learned Gentleman attach to the phrase
any such Order may modify the provisions of this Act?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know if I would be in order in answering that question. I can only answer one objection at a time. My answer
is that that is only a subsidiary power which it is necessary to give to the Minister to make the first part of the Section effective. Under the first part of the Section, the Minister may remove a difficulty and make an Order. It is quite possible that the Minister's Order may be in conflict with something in the Act, because the Minister's Order is to remove a difficulty. Then you will have two provisions, one by the Act and one by the Order which the Minister is empowered to make, which are in conflict. Both will have statutory authority and will be conflicting. The question is which is to prevail. Unless the last sentence of this Section were added, there would be no solution of the puzzle. In order to solve that problem, the House says that the Minister may modify the provisions of the Act so as to get rid of one of the two inconsistent provisions. I hope that answers the question which the hon. and learned Member has addressed to me.
The hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) raised the question, which he argued very well, as to whether it is or is not necessary to give Parliament the power to approve an Order. He anticipated correctly that the main objection to that would be the possibility of delay. He says that these difficulties can be seen coming. They are not difficulties that can be seen coming until they are required to be dealt with immediately. The hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw did not hear the Minister of Health, and therefore the House will perhaps forgive me if I refer to one of the illustrations given by the Minister. It was that of the provisions in the Eating Act which insisted that certain cases should be determined by justices numbering five. There was an impossibility of carrying that out, because nearly all the justices who might have sat otherwise were disqualified because they were ratepayers. The question immediately arose how were these matters to be determined, and the Minister made an Order modifying that Act by substituting two justices for five. That is an example of a difficulty which cannot be seen coming until information of it comes to the Minister.
The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham is that, if Parliament is not in Session, such a
question as that must wait until Parliament is in session. He says that a few weeks will not matter. The difficulty of delay is rather a serious one, and I would point out that he really has the substance of this matter in Clause 119, Subsection (3), which provides that Parliament may annul any Order that is made. The hon. Gentleman opposite is right in saying that "modified" is not in. There are two possibilities. The special matter of the Order may be of so trivial and unobjectionable a nature that Parliament will not want to discuss it, and not a single Member will want to put down a Motion to discuss it. If my hon. Friend's Amendment is put in, Parliament will be compelled to debate these trivial matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am perfectly right. If my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion were adopted, no Order made by the Minister could be effective until it was approved by both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, any trivial or unobjectionable Order, however formal, would have to be approved by Motion in this House and in the other House.

Mr. BEIMN: You said "discussion." I That is where you are wrong.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: At any rate, by Motion in this House. That is to say, the House would be troubled and the other House would be troubled by these Motions, and by discussions upon matters which, according to my hypothesis are too trivial for any Member to raise in this House. Clause 119 gives the House ample power to annul an Order if it really is improper or more than formal, or is not one that would be accepted by universal consent. I am not saying that my hon. Friend's suggestion is not worth consideration. It is well worth consideration. The Minister of Health has: considered it. At the present I moment, he takes the view that he has already got the safeguard which is desirable in Clause 119, Sub-section (3) and, after what I have said in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw, I hope it will be felt that my right hon. Friend has met the House fairly by the Amendment which has already been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman still maintain that, merely because the Minister finds a
legitimate difficulty in the application of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, it will really become necessary to discuss every small infinitesimal point which may be removed by means of the presentation of an Order to the House? Is it not perfectly correct to say that if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) were adopted, it would be merely a question of placing a notice on the Order Paper and of the question being formally put from the Chair? Is it not fair to assume that the House under normal circumstances without any discussion would at once see the validity of the Motion and would be willing to agree to the question without discussion?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not say that the House would see the validity of the Motion until it was explained.

Mr. WILLIAMS: We are frequently confronted in this House after Eleven o'clock with from seven to 17 gas Orders. The Minister of Transport presents them to the House. They are on the Order Paper, and one after another they are put and agreed to. It is understood by all Members that the whole of the proceedings have been dealt with in the ordinary legitimate course of business, and they are accepted without discussion or debate. Therefore, it seems to me that the power given to the Minister here will be used for the purpose of making any changes that may be necessary in this Act. Whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman may say, the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) is perfectly correct in his assumption that the power contained in the last few words to modify the Act and give the Minister full power to make the Order effective does after all leave the Minister, in the last resort, well above Parliament. Is it advisable to place the Minister in that position for dealing with big points as well as the small legitimate points which may arise in the application of such a comprehensive Bill which as the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) said, is really six Bills rolled into one?
All Members of the House can foresee difficulties. It is plain that, if any Minister of Health cared to abuse the power which this Section places in his
hands, he could do so, and Parliament would have no redress. Therefore, I would suggest that, in the light of our own experience of gas Orders, which are accepted merely by the question being put from the Chair, the Minister of Health would in no way be retarded in the application of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, if he was obliged to present his Orders to both Houses of Parliament. I see no difficulty in that. If it were desired to retain Parliamentary control over big questions—and this is a very big question, affecting all the local authorities—and if the words now suggested could not be accepted, the Minister might at least satisfy the House that the Ministry are not desirous of abusing their powers. I he would promise to look into this matter and introduce the necessary words, that would give satisfaction to all parts of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 104, line 1, to leave out the words "or expedient."
This is a manuscript Amendment, and the object with which it is moved has already been referred to by my right hon. Friend and myself. The omission of these words will leave the position so that the Minister may by Order modify the provisions of the Act:
So far as may appear to the Minister necessary for carrying the Order into effect.

Sir H. SLESSER: I should like to know, and I am sure the House would like to know, what is the legal effect of leaving out these words "or expedient." I understand that this is another instalment of repentance on the part of the Minister, and I am sure his intention is good, but does it mean anything at all? As the Clause reads now, it says that he may modify the provisions of this Act:
So far as may appear to the Minister necessary or expedient.
Now it is proposed to leave out the words "or expedient" so that it will read:
So far as may appear to the Minister necessary.
What I would like to know, and what we have not been told, is what difference is produced by leaving out the words "or expedient." We may assume that any Order made would be necessary in the opinion of the Minister and that equally
he would think it expedient. Therefore I should like to know whether anything at all is being achieved by this proposed Amendment. Surely we may know why the Minister, who has quoted so many precedents to justify this Clause, has now got these qualms and thinks the omission of the words "or explain" will improve the situation. He is still the judge of the necessity, and no doubt in judging of its necessity he will judge of its expediency. What is the precise distinction between the two? Perhaps the learned Attorney-General will oblige us.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL indicated dissent.

Sir H. SLESSER: If the learned Attorney-General is unable to give the answer, perhaps the Minister will tell us what is the difference between necessity and expediency in this connection?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be very happy to try to enlighten the hon. and learned Member who, as on so many previous occasions, has not, I am afraid, carefully read the Clause in its original form and as altered by the Amendment we have already passed. If he will look at the wording in the Clause as it stood originally he will find that it says, on page 103, at line 40:
which appears to him necessary or expedient.
When I moved the Amendment which accepted in substance the words suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson), we inserted in place of those words the words:
make such Order for removing the difficulty as he may judge to be necessary for that purpose.
As we have omitted the words "or expedient" in that place, obviously it is only consistent that we should omit them again where they follow in this instance, and that is the sole reason for this Amendment.

Mr. BENN: The right hon. Gentleman has not given us a word of explanation as to the real meaning of the word "expedient" It may be that the present Government may be necessary, but it is not expedient. This Clause gives the Government power to modify the provisions of the Act. That is agreed.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: For the purpose of bringing the Act into operation.

Mr. BENN: For the purpose of carrying it out more effectually.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, for the purpose of carrying out the Order.

Mr. BENN: Whatever form of words the Attorney-General wants, I accept them; but it gives power for certain modifications to be made—that, at any rate, is agreed. What I want to know is this. Under this particular Clause can the Government make an Order modifying the provisions of this Clause 120 itself? We have given them power for the year 1929 to modify the provisions of the Act. Is it possible under this Clause to extend 1930 to 1931?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If I may speak once more, by leave of the House, I may say that I find it very difficult to conceive any such case as the hon. Member has suggested. The best answer I can give him is that I do not believe that this Clause could be used for any such purpose as he has suggested.

Mr. HARRIS: Abstract points have been put, but I should like to get down to the concrete. This Bill deals with the Unemployed Workmen's Act, 1905, and when I asked a question this afternoon as to what was to happen to the Hollesley Bay colony, which was established under the Act of 1905, the Minister airily said that it would be transferred to the London County Council. I suppose that is an example of the kind of Order which the Minister intends to promulgate. Personally, I have no objection to this being done, but I think it is rather highhanded in face of what the House of Commons decided under that particular Act.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the Minister has power to modify certain provisions, does that power apply to the definitions Clause? Take one point— there is no definition of "infectious disease" in the definitions Clause, though there is a reference to it in another part of the Bill. The Minister told us rather airily that he was informed that the term "infectious disease" would cover certain things, but we have never been very clear as to what particular diseases it does cover. Institutions under the local
authorities might find themselves in a difficulty if one particular kind of tuberculosis is included and another variety of tuberculosis is not included, and it might be very convenient for the Minister, "for the purpose of removing the difficulty," to say that no kind of tuberculosis should be included in the definition of infectious disease. I would like to know whether the Minister can modify what he says he understands is the definition of infectious disease under this Clause of the Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: Obviously, the power given under this Clause has nothing to do with the question of what is infectious disease since it is not denned in this Measure. If a local authority wants to find out what is an infectious disease it must look elsewhere than in this Bill. Therefore, this Clause will not affect that point. As regards the question about the transfer of Hollesley Bay, that would not be done under this Clause, but under another Clause in the Bill.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: But what is to prevent the Minister from making a definition for the purpose of removing difficulties in carrying out the Act?

Sir K. WOOD: That is not "bringing the Act into operation."

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: With reference to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about a definition having been inserted, I would point out that there is no definition of infectious disease in the Measure; but I hope after what he has said, that it will be inserted at another stage.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member misunderstands me. I said there was no such definition. I said you had to look elsewhere for a definition. I held out no such hope of putting a definition in this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) handed in a manuscript Amendment. I do not know whether he thinks it worth while to move it now?

Mr. ATKINSON: I do not want to move it, but not because I am satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 104, line 11, to leave out the words "borough or."
This is merely a drafting Amendment. There is no case to which these words would apply.

Amendment agreed to.

ELEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions for securing allowance of rebates to selected traffics corresponding to rate relief of certain companies.)

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I beg to move, in page 146, to leave out from the word "companies," in line 33, to the word "and," in line 35.
In the Bill it is provided that the fund during the first year shall provide half of one per cent. of the total amount paid into the fund to meet the expenses of the Railway Companies. While the Bill was going through the Committee stage we included several other items in the selected traffics which may increase the expenses of the Railway Companies and justify a larger charge upon the fund. This Amendment proposes that for the first year as in subsequent years the Railway Rates Tribunal should be authorised to increase the amount to be paid out of the fund for these purposes.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 147, line 1, to leave out the word "administrative."
This Amendment is moved to remove any doubts regarding the position of companies. It means that the fund is to bear the expenses of the Railway
Rates Tribunal as far as this particular scheme is concerned, and the Railway Rates Tribunal is the body to adjudicate on these matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 147, line 2, after the word "under," insert the words "or for the purposes of."

In line 21, leave out the words "each of the several traffics contained in" and insert instead thereof the words "the selected traffics contained in each of."—[Colonel Ashley.]

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move, in page 148, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
(5) The scheme shall make provision for apportioning the rebates to be allowed among the carriage charges made in the following cases:

(a) in respect of coal delivered to a washery, coke oven, or patent fuel works, from two or more collieries where the coal is so mixed that it cannot be identified as being consigned from any one colliery and a part only of the resultant coal, coke, or patent fuel is a selected traffic; and
(b) in respect of coal shipped coastwise where the coal is so mixed that it cannot be identified as being consigned from any one colliery and a part only thereof is exported."
This Amendment and those that follow have been put down in order to implement an undertaking which was given to the House when we were dealing with trade carried coastwise. It provides that exported coal should be included in the coal rebate. This Amendment also meets the case where in accordance with the modern practice, instead of carrying one washery and one coke oven serving a colliery works or factory, we have a combination of a large coke oven to deal with a group of steel works and a group of collieries. I propose this Amendment to include in the selected traffics coal which is delivered to a washery coke oven or patent fuel works, from two or more collieries. Paragraph (b) deals with coal shipped coastwise and it has to be read in conjunction with a provision lower down in the Clause. It is designed to meet the case where in case of a certain amount of coal passing in the export trade it is impossible to identify that coal with any
one consignment which has passed along a railway. We shall be able now to give the rebate to such traffic partly rail and partly coastwise which comes into any port.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you will permit a general discussion on the Amendment in page 153, line 12, which stands in the name of the Minister of Transport. I gather from what the President of the Board of Trade has said that it might be for the convenience of the House if we took the discussion on this particular Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall be quite satisfied if the discussion takes place on any Amendment, provided that the particular points which hon. Members wish to discuss are included in it. If this Amendment covers the question which the hon. Gentleman has raised, it might be discussed now.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not know that it does cover it entirely. The question of exported coal is dealt with in a later Amendment, but the question of coal shipped coastwise is raised on this Amendment. Would it be in order for us, on this particular Amendment, to discuss both these questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am entirely in the hands of the House. If they like to discuss those questions now, I am quite satisfied that they should do so.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate what these combined Amendments do. They do, in fact, cover the whole coastwise traffic where it is a selected traffic.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Not coal only?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Not coal only.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This is a slight concession to the coastwise shipping industry. It is something, and we must be thankful for small mercies. It is a commentary upon what happened in Committee. In Committee we had not much time for the discussion, and a great many points were left obscure. One of these, to which I must refer because it has a bearing on later Amendments, was that the President of the Board of Trade, who, I always
thought, had the shipping of the country specially under his care, told us that the shipping interests were quite satisfied with the Schedule and with the Bill as drawn, and that they thought that this was the best of all possible Governments and that the right hon. Gentleman was the best of all possible Ministers. I ventured to challenge that, and the right hon. Gentleman took refuge in the fall of the Guillotine. Now we see that there was a case, at any rate, for part of the claims of the coastwise shipping trade, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) is here to support it.
If this be admitted, and if the Government have given us a concession in this respect, that when coal is carried for these particular purposes as a selected traffic by water it shall get some rebate, just as if it were carried by rail, why, may I ask, do the Government still harden their hearts, if they do harden their hearts—I am not quite sure, because the Amendments are very long and complicated—and differentiate against other traffics carried coastwise? I would press for an answer to that question at some time during this discussion, and I would put it to the President of the Board of Trade that his function, if he will allow me to say so, is not to score debating points off those Members who are trying to get some concession for the shippers and the coastal shipping trade, but to defend the interests of a very valuable industry which, as I repeat, I thought was his special care.
Why, if this concession is given in regard to coal, is it refused in regard to other selected traffics, such as potatoes, manures, oil cakes and other articles which get the rebate if they are carried on the railway? I understand that deputations have waited on the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Transport, and that even the Prime Minister has been approached on this matter, but we can get nothing for the coastal shipping trade except this one concession with regard to coal. Could we have some explanation? Unless some explanation is given, I really think that there ought to be a protest from other parts of the House, because this question is not a party question, but affects all Members who represent seaports in this House. This is not merely an Opposition point;
it is a national question, and, unless the Government do something, direct unemployment will be caused at the ports among a body of men who are suffering very much.
If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us any further concession, may I put this to him, and the same principle will arise in regard to some further traffics—for instance, in regard to the milling question which was referred to the other day. Perhaps it is too much to ask the Government to give us a concession immediately, although I hope they will; but will they promise that, if it is found in practice, when the Bill comes into operation and when these rebates are in operation, that an unfair advantage has been given to this section of common carriers as against that section of common carriers—if the railway companies are getting an unfair advantage in their quite healthy competition with the shipping companies—can the Government promise us, that is, if they are still in office, and the same promise will bind their successors, that an amending Bill will be brought in? It can be quite a short and simple Bill, and its object will be to balance the advantages of rate relief evenly amongst the different bodies who act as common carriers for the public and the merchants of the whole country. That is all that we want, namely, as the sailors say, a fair crack of the whip for both the coastal shipping trade and the railway lines. The Government must know that they have done some injustice, and this Amendment is a somewhat tardy recognition of that fact. If we cannot have a concession now, I would like an assurance at any rate that the situation will be carefully watched, and that this Bill in the future is not going to be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, not to be altered even in a comma.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If I may speak again by the leave of the House, I can answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question immediately. He has said that he wishes exactly the same provision to be made where other selected traffics are carried in order to be shipped coastwise. They will receive that benefit. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Now. This is not in answer to an appeal made at the last moment, but after very full discussion with the Chamber of Shipping and the right hon. Gentleman
the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) to whom I am indebted for a great deal of help in this matter. This point was raised by the shipping industry, who said, "Selected traffic in the case of coal is coal for export. Some coal passes by rail to a port, and is then shipped coastwise. It reaches, say, the Port of London, and from some depot in London it is exported. In order to put us square with the railways as regards that coal traffic, we ought to secure a rebate on the coal exported in respect of the journey which that coal originally made from the colliery to the port." That is exactly the case that I have met by this Amendment, and the House will see that I have met it whether the coal can be identified or not. Now the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks why the same thing is not done with regard to other selected traffics. As a matter of fact, the same thing is done. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now talking about agricultural traffics. Where agricultural traffics are consigned from an inland centre to a port to be shipped coastwise, they will of course be entitled to their 10 per cent. rebate on the railway from the point of despatch to the port.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That is a direct advantage to the railways as against the shipping trade when the traffics are carried from port to port.

Mr. PALIN: I am wanting to be thankful for a small mercy, but I really cannot see where it comes in. The President of the Board of Trade has told us that he is giving the concession that was asked for by the Chamber of Shipping. They asked for a very simple thing, and it seems to me that the reply might be given in very simple language. They asked that on the Scheduled traffic they should receive the same rebate as the railway companies received. Their complaint was that, by the ante-dating of the Act so far as rebates on certain selected traffics were concerned, they were suffering a great disadvantage and were losing traffic. They submitted figures to the right hon. Gentleman to show the extent to which they were losing traffic, and pointed out to him that, if this went on until the Act came fully into operation, that traffic would be alienated from them for all time. It
seems to be a small matter, and it is strange that I as a Labour Member should be here pleading for the right hon. Gentleman's friends. I could understand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) pleading for this, but we are told that this will make a disturbance in the employment in the ports quite out of proportion to the amount of money which the right hon. Gentleman could give by a Supplementary Estimate and which would place them on exactly the same footing as the railways. Can the right hon. Gentleman divest his concession of its trimmings and tell us whether he is actually conceding the coastwise shippers' demand, or how far he is falling short of it, or whether this is a compromise? At the moment I cannot see that he is giving anything at all.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The last thing that I want to do is to mislead the hon. Gentleman, but it is a little difficult to bring this within the terms of any conceivable Amendment that we could discuss on this Schedule. Two claims were made. One was the original claim, which I thought was very reasonable, that in respect of all coal they should be treated on all fours. That claim is completely met. So far as regards other selected traffics, such as agricultural traffics carried from an agricultural centre to a port, obviously those traffics will get the 10 per cent. rebate from the agricultural centre to the port. I do not know whether I am in order in answering these questions, but two alternative proposals were put forward. One was that a direct subsidy should be given on a special Vote to coastwise traffic. That was the proposal put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott)—it was not, I know, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman)—and that suggestion is now made by the hon. Member who has just spoken. I do not think I ought to go into all the arguments on that subject at a time when we cannot discuss it, but the House will remember that I did reply upon it on the last occasion, and said that I did not feel justified in submitting to the House a Vote for a subsidy because I did not think the case for a subsidy had been proved.
8.0 p.m.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea made an alternative proposal which it is, strictly speaking, equally out of order to discuss now. His proposal was to anticipate the whole of the de-rating of the docks. Of course, if the de-rating of the docks were anticipated, the coastwise trade would, they think, get certain concessions from the dock companies, and what they are asking is, not for a subsidy, but that they may be in the same position in which they will be in a few months time when the complete de-rating of the docks comes into operation. There are two answers to that. The first is that the maximum amount of traffic to be relieved is small, and even at its highest figure it would only be something like £300,000. Limiting very considerably the body of traffic you can get in, and assuming a pound-to-pound freight and a 10 per cent. rebate, on that you get a figure of something like £20,000. In order to meet that, and the measure of competition which operates in different cases—it will only be relatively few cases in which there will be really keen competition— my right hon. Friend says, "Let us de-rate in advance the whole of the docks." To do that would cost something like £750,000.

Mr. RUNCIMAN indicated dissent.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, taking a rough calculation of what the docks pay and taking three-quarters of those rates, a conservative estimate would involve a payment of £750,000. It would be a really impossible thing to de-rate the docks in advance, because the assessment of the docks will not be completed in time. It is a very difficult assessment which has got to be gone through. They have to separate, for the purposes of assessment under this Bill, those parts of the docks which are freight hereditaments from those parts which are merely warehouses. That is a lengthy process, the end of which cannot be reached until shortly before the main Bill comes into force. Therefore, on administrative grounds and on account of the large expenditure involved, the Government felt it was really quite impossible to consider the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I will do him justice to say that he said that the last thing in the world for which he wanted to ask was a subsidy.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think we are justified on the Report stage of the Schedule in entering into discussions of alternative schemes. It is quite enough to mention the alternatives, but we cannot go into their merits.

Mr. PALING: Am I to understand that the Minister's reply is this, that no additional assistance is to be given in any way to the coastwise traders? He is really taking credit for the fact that certain goods would go partly by railway and partly by sea, and that shipowners would benefit by the concession given to the railways.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I have moved an Amendment which I have explained to the House.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The coastwise trade are satisfied with regard to coal. That is only a very restricted part of the problem with which the right hon. Gentleman has to deal. It would be out of order to go back on the discussion held here before, but it was from the very first no part of the case that I was authorised to put forward on behalf of the coastwise shipping that they should claim a subsidy.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Hear, hear!

Mr. RUNCIMAN: They did not ask for it, and the Chamber of Shipping has set its face very strongly against the subsidy on shipping as being a wrong principle. I was, however, asked to place before my right hon. Friend the claim made by the coastwise shipping to receive the anticipated relief already given to the railways. At a remarkable meeting held in a Committee Boom upstairs, where nearly every part of the country was represented by those who claimed to speak on behalf of the coastwise shipping—I was only in the chair, and not a spokesman—it was made clear that what they objected to was that under the provisions of the scheme the railways are going to get 10 months start. My right hon. Friend says that that is not a very large amount. Perhaps it is not large when we consider the figures we discuss in this House, but it may be large enough to establish a traffic on the railways which will not afterwards return to the coastwise ships; because, when once a traffic is run into one channel it is not
easily diverted again into the old original channel. I gather that under this Schedule we cannot possibly ask for any form of relief which will put the railways and the shipping on the same footing. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I naturally cannot press the matter against your ruling, and would not think of doing so, but when my right hon. Friend speaks of the de-rating of the docks he is taking a figure which covers the whole of the dock property. He has himself pointed out that, as we discovered in the discussions last summer, the warehouse part is not to receive any de-rating.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I think I gave a perfectly correct figure. That is the figure after taking all the elements in the docks which are not going to be entitled to relief. The cost of de-rating the docks will be £750,000.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am rather surprised to hear that very large figure, because the Docks' and Harbours' Association, when we met upstairs, said that, as far as they could ascertain, the total amount of the rating relief in the course of a year would be something like £500,000. Ten months could not possibly make that £750,000. There must be something wrong in the arithmetic. Whatever that may be, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have not, in the opinion of the coastwise shipping, done them justice. They feel a deep sense of the grievance, and they only hope that the result of their experience in the next 10 months will not be the diversion of traffic for which they have to fight in open competition with the railways which have been given assistance by the Minister of Transport. They feel that they have not received fair play at the hands of the Government.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I followed as closely as I could the President of the Board of Trade in his opening speech and in his interruptions. He referred to the concessions in regard to agricultural products. I should like to ask him, will sugar come under that definition? He is no doubt aware that the sugar-refining industry in Greenock is suffering because of the policy of the Government. I rise only to ask him whether the definition of agricultural products covers sugar either in its raw state or in its refined state after leaving the factory.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The definition covers the offal of the sugar beet used for feeding livestock, and it covers treacle consigned direct to the farmer. As far as sugar as a feeding stuff is concerned, there is a very long list set out in the Schedule; otherwise sugar is not a selected traffic. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that these traffics were selected because they were those that agriculture thought would be of the greatest advantage to it.

Mr. BENN: As a Member representing a port, I was approached in this matter by the coastwise shipping people. The discussion took place on the Committee stage, at which I was not present, and satisfaction was not given to them. In the ordinary way it would be in the power of hon. Gentlemen to move to recommit a certain Clause or Schedule of the Bill in order to raise this matter. If they did that1, they would be in a position to ask the Government to make the necessary financial arrangements. But the Government have preserved, under their Guillotine Resolution, the sole power of re-committal, and have therefore cut out all our powers to take any step which might have been framed to raise the points which we want to raise. Therefore, the blame lies entirely on the Government's shoulders that the matter cannot be properly debated to-day. The Government have reserved this power to themselves, not in order that they should use it, but in order that other Members should not use it. I should like to associate myself with the protest made by my right hon. and hon. Friends with regard to coastwise shipping.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 149, line 8, after the first word "of," insert the word "the."—[Colonel Ashley.]

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 150, to leave out from the word "twenty-one," in line 30, to the word "subsection" in line 32.

This Amendment is consequential.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: To what is this consequential?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is consequential to the Amendment in page 147, line 1, leave out the word "administrative."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 150, line 35, leave out the word "that," and insert instead thereof the words "the said."—[Colonel Ashley.]

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 153, line 3, at the end, to insert the words:
'Coke oven' means works consisting of coke ovens wholly or mainly engaged in the production of coke for metallurgical purposes.
This is consequential on the Amendment which the House has just carried, which has introduced the principle that a coke oven shall be included in the privileges given to selected traffic.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 153, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
'Exported' in relation to coal, coke or patent fuel, means shipped to places outside the British Islands, or as bunkers for ships proceeding to places outside those islands, or as bunkers for fishing vessels, and 'exported coal, coke, or patent fuel' includes coal, coke, and patent fuel shipped coastwise before being exported.

This Amendment is consequential.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: In view of the Amendment—in page 156, line 35, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 6, page 157, and to insert instead thereof the words:
Exported coal, coke, or patent fuel.
Coal, coke, or patent fuel delivered to and used in iron or steel works.
Coal delivered to patent fuel works to the extent that it is exported as patent fuel after manufacture.
Coal delivered to a washery to the extent that it is, after being washed or cleaned, exported or delivered to iron or steel works.
Coal delivered to a coke oven (not being situated at iron or steel works) to the extent that it is, after being converted into coke at the coke oven, exported or delivered to iron or steel works—
I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House if you, Mr Speaker, would allow a general discussion at this point upon the question of extending the relief to other coal and patent fuel besides exported coal. Then, after that, we could move a manuscript Amendment to that proposed Amendment, on page 156, line 35, to leave out the word "exported." We could move
that formally and divide on it, having taken our general discussion on the first Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: Probably it will be the general sense of the House that that would be the moat convenient thing to do. The question obviously hangs together with the Government Amendment in page 156, line 35, to which, I understand, the hon. Gentleman has handed in a manuscript Amendment. Therefore, it would probably be better to take a general discussion now.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have no intention of detaining the House at any length on this matter, but hon. Members will recollect that when the Committee stage of the Bill was under discussion we took very strong exception on this side to this relief being confined to exported coal. The case that we submit is that it is very unwise for the Government to be giving relief of this kind in such a way that our actual competitors in manufactures in Europe and other places will be receiving the benefit of British relief in cheaper coal to be used, in some places, for industrial purposes in competition with our home manufactures. The President of the Board of Trade replied on the last occasion, and I think rightly, that in the case of the iron and steel industry on the Continent, this exported coal would not be used, but I think he will hardly say that what is in effect the subsidising of foreign manufacturers of other commodities can be put in the same category as iron and steel. It is plain on examination that there will be a number of industries which compete with certain British productions which will in fact get the benefit of the cheaper coal by means of passing on this rebate only in respect of export coal.
There is also this question to be considered, that there are a large number of our industries at home that are in different degrees of prosperity. Some of them, of course, are doing fairly well; others are not doing so well, and if there was anything at all in the general argument of the Government that the de-rating scheme as a whole will tend to stimulate British production and increase the possibility of finding a market by reduction of costs, and therefore will stimulate the demand for workers to produce the goods required, surely the re-
lief ought to be spread over those industries which are really in need of a stimulus of that kind. I have very grave doubts indeed whether artificial methods of this kind are the best to be adopted for industry. Indeed, all the discussion we are getting on this Schedule shows exactly how log-rolling takes place between all the different trading interests as soon as the State comes in to stimulate this or that special section of the industrial and commercial community against some other section. If the Government is to avoid the charge that what is after all the taxpayers' money in the last resort, in the income from the Petrol Tax and general contributions from the Exchequer, is to be used for this special subsidy, surely all the productive industries which find it necessary to use coal ought to have the advantage of the cheaper freights which will be possible by the passing of a scheme of this kind. I do not wish to take up time, but I have to express the view of the Opposition on the matter and, whilst we shall take the Division upon the manuscript Amendment which we shall move on the next page in the Order Paper, we record our opinion now.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to give an additional reason for supporting the manuscript Amendment. This bounty to the export trade is deceptive. When the general taxpayer was asked to find money from the general revenues of the country in order that the railway companies should be allowed to reduce freights on coal, we were told it was in order to stimulate the export trade. In answer to questions since the Committee stage, the Secretary for Mines admits, without equivocation at all, that there has been no reduction in the price. There may have been a little here, and a little increase elsewhere, but I have actual figures from Hull showing that there has been no falling off in the price. Then how can you stimulate the export trade? [Interruption.] I wonder if the President of the Board of Trade is a disciple of the new creed in business methods, not of a large turnover and a small return, totalling in the whole a large profit, but a small turnover, a restricted output, and an inflated profit. We heard a few minutes ago the right hon. Gentleman's horror of a subsidy for shipping. "You must
not give anything to coastwise shipping. That would be quite contrary to the Government's policy." This subsidy to the coalowners is going straight into their pockets. There has been no reduction in the price, and in consequence, there has been no increase in the export. How can there be?
We are told we have to compete with coal from Germany and other countries, and the only way we can compete is by reducing the price. That has been the argument when the miners were told they must take less wages. We are passing this provision and it is going into the pockets of the coalowners. The Secretary for Mines says they are losing money. I doubt it. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can take me to a workhouse and show me a coalowner in it, I will believe him, if he can produce a coalowner who is receiving outdoor relief, I will believe him, but I do not believe the coalowners are losing money. They may be able to show a book loss, but they make it up by sales of domestic coal—some of the pits are almost solely export pits—or by other manipulation or by the sale of by-products, or else they are shareholders of steel works. The whole thing is intertwined. It is log-rolling. They play into each other's hands. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman shows me a starving coalowner, as I can show him scores of thousands of almost starving miners, we shall be in agreement, but till then, no.
The second point is that, in spite of our subsidies and attempts to stimulate trade, coalowners are deliberately restricting trade by their policy of restricting outputs. You have the five counties scheme in operation, which fixes the quota for the collieries in the five Midland and Northern counties, and in Goole, Hull, Grimsby, on the Clyde, and the Tyne and in South Wales ships are held up continually for bunker coal or for the export trade and cannot get clear. The Secretary for Mines had his attention drawn to this at Question-time, but he has not heard of it officially. May I draw attention to what the shipowners themselves say in their official organs. You will see complaints week after week about queues of shipping. I have evidence from the Humber. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says he is doing his best to have the delays reduced. Why are there these delays?
The answer is that this is a policy of ca'canny. It is a deliberate restriction by rationing, and it tends to raise the price of coal by creating an artificial scarcity. It is shameful that we should be asked to subsidise that action, and to give it a bounty. Some people may say that it is rationalisation. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) always sits as a kind of bird of prey on the bench below the Gangway opposite, waiting to pounce on behalf of the coal-owners. Every chance that he gets, he says: "Is not this rationalization? Is not this what the Samuel Committee advocated? Is not this what certain Members of this House recognise as inevitable?" It is not rationalisation. It means putting up the whole of the overhead charges; it means keeping on the inefficient as well as the efficient pits and it means keeping the whole of the water in the capital. It is the policy of ca'canny, and if anyone tells me that the policy of ca'canny is rationalisation, I tell them that they know nothing about it.
This is not rationalisation, it is not fair trading, it is not free trading. It is taking advantage of a situation which has been encouraged and created by this Government. We are asked to subsidise such an action and to find money for it from the pockets of the overburdened taxpayers, we are giving these people every encouragement, and presents into the bargain. The result in the ports is that ships are held up, and trade is driven away from foreign countries which means loss of employment and loss of business. That fact is admitted by the Minister responsible for the Mines Department, although he says: "We are making things better. I am making representations to the coal owners." Trade is being deliberately hampered and turned away from our ports owing to this absurd rationalisation scheme. It is said that it has only been in operation for a few months, that the difficulties have not all been overcome, and that those concerned are doing their best. The policy itself is wrong. It is very short-sighted and is not in the best interests of the export trade. I do not want to vote against any kind of real help to trade, but I should certainly vote for the Amendment. I dare say the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Ministry of Health is very sincere in believing in his Bill and in thinking that it will encourage trade; but when he is sitting up night after night, with an industry which we all admire and a resourcefulness which some of us envy, a selfish and very short-sighted body of men are undermining the work that he is trying to do.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): How does the hon. and gallant Member connect this argument with the export of coal?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thought we were allowed to discuss along and with the Amendment the further Amendment over the page, to leave out the word "exported." My point is, that if we are going to give this subsidy to the export trade and the merchants are not allowed to take advantage of it, apart from the coalowners, then we might as well give it to the domestic consumers.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: I should like to know the position with regard to small coal used for patent fuel. There was a discussion in the Committee stage with regard to the small coals which were taken to the patent fuel works at the dockside, and at that time the President of the Board of Trade promised that the matter should be considered. Is the position clear in regard to small coal used for patent fuel? There is one further point which arises on the general discussion. The Secretary for the Mines Department will, no doubt, refer to the fact that some of my colleagues and myself met him with regard to the question of confining the benefits under the scheme to export coal. We did urge that, and the position which was taken up by myself and my colleagues was one which we thought was best in the interests of the export trade. The position was put quite clearly to the Secretary for Mines, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other members of the Government when we met them. We pointed out that it was very largely as a result of the policy of the Government that we desired that the benefit should be confined to export coal because as a result of the operation of the Eight Hours Act foreign coals, Polish and Silesian and other coals used in competition with ours in the export market, had to be subsidised because of the re-
duction of price as a result of the Eight Hours Act coming into operation in this country. That is the position at the present time. Silesian export coal is carried over the railways from the pit to the port at half the cost at which it was carried in pre-War days. It is very largely because of that policy that we asked that this benefit should be confined to export coal.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite referred to the fact that there has been a reduction in the price of export coal. If he will look at the figures for December and compare them with the figures for November he will find that there is a reduction of something like 4d. per ton on export coal from South Wales, which is the f.o.b. price. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that almost as soon as this benefit came into operation a Government Department, in inviting contracts for tenders for coal for this year, asked that, in submitting prices, the reduction in price because of the de-rating proposals should be taken into consideration. It is true that the Circular which was sent out was very quickly recalled when brought to the notice of the Secretary for the Mines Department.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore King): It was withdrawn immediately.

Mr. HALL: Yes; but it shows the tendency even of Government Departments to try and get the advantage of a concession which was given to the mining industry. If a Government Department is ready to take advantage of a small concession of that kind, we cannot blame the foreigner if he attempts to get a concession.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Is the hon. Member going to vote against this Amendment?

Mr. HALL: I shall certainly not vote against it. I should not be consistent in voting against it, because it is what I asked for when I met the Secretary for Mines and asked that the benefit should be confined to coals exported from this country.

Commodore KING: May I assure the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Hall) that the point in regard to small coals
used for patent fuel is met; if he will read the Amendment at the top of page 677 he will find the words:
Coal delivered to patent fuel works to the extent that it is exported as patent fuel after manufacture.
That carries out the undertaking which has been given. There is not much need to reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the speech of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), because the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull so successfully demolished the speech made by his colleague. His colleague complained that this freight relief on export coal was wholly wasted and that it was doing harm, because it was being really given as a present to our foreign competitors. The hon. Member for Central Hull pointed out that so far from the price having gone down to the foreigner the price had actually increased. It has. If hon. Members will study the prices of export coal from every exporting district as between the 1st December and the present time they will find that in every case the price of all classes of coal has gone up. I am extremely glad that the price has gone up and I hope that we may see it go still higher, because it means that so far as the coal trade is concerned it is not only getting the advantage of 6d. or 7d. a ton freight relief in the coal which it is sending into port, but it is getting a considerable improvement in price. When the hon. Member for Central Hull says that we are doing nothing to stimulate trade, I would remind him that that in itself is stimulating trade, because not only has the price gone up but the amount exported has increased and is increasing week by week.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that the reduction in freight price has actually raised the price of export coal?

Commodore KING: No, but it has stimulated trade without a doubt. Far from prices going down, I say that they are going up, and I hope they will still further rise. Not because, as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull says, that the profits go into the pockets of the coalowners. He ought to realise, if he takes any interest in the coal industry, that for years the coal industry has been losing shillings per ton and any-
thing we can do to decrease that loss is all for the benefit of the industry and those who work in it. If profits are made, instead of going into the pockets of the coalowners as the hon. and gallant Member seems to think, they go, as many of his colleagues will tell him, under present arrangements as regards 87 per cent. of the profits to the mine workers and not to the mineowners. Therefore, any profits that are made are for the benefit of the industry, whether they be coalowners or coal workers.

Mr. BATEY: I do not think the Secretary for Mines should have sat down before telling us how much money is paid in respect of this freight relief on coal. It came into force on the 4th December last and by this time he ought to be in a position to tell us how much money is being paid. In his speech he argued that prices for export coal have increased. They have; but that was not the expectation of the Government. When they gave this freight relief the Government did so with the intention that it would reduce prices for export coal and for iron and steel as well. The Government boasted last year that they would be able to reduce the prices of iron and steel. Now they have to confess that this freight relief has not reduced the prices of iron and steel by a single penny.

Commodore KING: It is only given to coal.

Mr. BATEY: I am talking about coal and nothing else. I will repeat my statement for the benefit of the Secretary for Mines, that this freight relief has not reduced the price of iron and steel by a single penny.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This only deals with export coal.

Mr. BATEY: Yes, but the two are combined. The freight relief that is given for coal is for the purpose of reducing the prices for export coal and also the prices for coal sold to the iron and steel works. The two are combined. It has not reduced those prices, nor has it reduced the prices of export coal. Since it has been given the prices of export coal have increased. What benefit has this freight relief been to export coal? The Secretary for Mines says that the coal trade is getting the advantage. Who is getting the advantage? When the
hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the coal trade is getting the advantage would it not have been fairer if he said that it was the coalowners who were getting the advantage? The Secretary for Mines is bound to admit that the miners themselves are getting no advantage. They are not getting a single penny out of this freight relief.

Commodore KING: They are getting increased employment already.

Mr. BATEY: Let us see. There is no doubt that the pits that are working are more regularly employed. That is correct, but it has not started a single pit.

Commodore KING: Oh, yes.

Mr. BATEY: Well, I come from a district where nearly one-half the coal is for export. Where are the pits that have been started there? As a matter of fact, no pit which was exporting coal in the county of Durham has been restarted. This freight relief does not mean employment to a single miner that was unemployed, and we are justified in saying that it is simply going into the pockets of the coalowners and will never dribble down to the miners themselves. It cannot, for this reason. In each district there is a big debit balance each month against the miners. In two months in the County of Durham the debit balance leached £500,000. This freight relief is not large enough to affect that debit balance, and so long as it exists there can be no increase in wages to the miners. The miners, therefore, get no benefit. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is quite right in saying that this freight relief has gone into the pockets of the coalowners, who alone will get any advantage. I am in favour of the Amendment, which says that it would be better to give this freight relief to all coal. The Government have given it in respect of coal carried over the public railways, but will not give a single penny to coal carried over private railways. They do not care what becomes of the collieries carrying coal over private railways. But these pits are being kept fully employed because of the increased demand for export coal and because the prices of export coal have gone up, altogether independently of freight relief. If the Government had wanted to be fair this freight relief would not have been con-
fined to coal carried over public railways, but it would have been given to coal carried over private railways as well.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see how the question of private railways arises on this Amendment. We are dealing with the question of the definition of what is export coal, and whether export coal only is to have this benefit. The question of private railways is perfectly irrelevant.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With all due respect to you, before you came into the Chair it was decided for the convenience of hon. Members that we should have a general discussion on this Amendment and on a manuscript Amendment to the proposed Amendment which raises the whole point, to leave out the word "exported."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A general discussion, yes, as to whether the relief should be confined to export coal and also as to what is export coal and coastwise coal, but, surely, questions as to the relief to railways, whether they are public railways or private railways, seems to me to be a totally different point.

Mr. BATEY: I was under the impression that on this Amendment we were discussing the freight relief for all coal, whether for export or for domestic purposes.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is in order in discussing whether the relief should be given to domestic coal as well as to exported coal. I understand that Mr. Speaker said that that was so. But the question of the de-rating of the private railway system seems to be a totally different point.

Mr. BATEY: I was not discussing the de-rating of private railways. I was arguing that the Government should not confine relief to public railways, but should extend it to private railways, both for export coal and coal for iron and steel. But I will leave that point. If the Government really wanted to help the miners and the coal industry they would have given freight relief to all coal. Much coal is sent to the shipyards and it gets no freight relief. If such coal had received the freight relief, the shipyards might have been encouraged to use more coal, and we might have got more pits started. The same argument applies to
domestic coal. We shall never solve the problems of the coal industry by giving relief merely to coal for export purposes. There is a huge amount of coal used for domestic purposes. I have asked the Minister to tell us what is being paid in freight relief. Until we get that information we shall continue to say that this relief is simply a bounty and a dole to the coalowners. When the scheme was first launched the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to Newcastle and told the people that the Government had launched their attack upon the Hindenburg Line, a triple line, the line of unemployment, of trade depression and of rating muddle. How this relief is going to help us with the unemployment in the mining district, I do not know. It has had no effect whatever, and I predict that in two years' time it will have had no effect whatever in curing unemployment in the mining districts. The Government would be wise to stop and think of the lessons that Durham and Northumberland have taught them in the past two weeks.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that that has nothing to do with export coal.

Mr. BATEY: It would be wise for the Government to pay heed to these lessons.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This Amendment deals with what export coal means, and not with the position of the Government.

Mr. BATEY: Yes, but there are some of us who have a little sympathy with the Government sometimes, and we do not like to see them put into predicaments like this. Here are the miners suffering, and they ought to be the best judges of this freight relief.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the question whether the relief should be confined to export coal or not.

Mr. BATEY: I want to know when we can expect what the Government promised—that this freight relief would help us. Meanwhile I say that the relief that the Government have given is simply a dole to the coalowners.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 104.

Division No. 199.]
AYES.
[6.34 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Albery, Irving James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Captain D.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Apsley, Lord
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Waiden)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Frece, Sir Walter de
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Atkinson, C.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore Sir Newton J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Berry, Sir George
Goff, Sir Park
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bethel, A.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Blundall, F. N.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hanbury, C.
Oakley, T.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Harland, A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Penny, Frederick George


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perring, Sir William George


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson,Capt.R.R.(Oxford, Henley)
Preston, Sir Waiter (Cheltenham)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Radford, E. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ramsden, E.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hills, Major John Waller
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hilton, Cecil
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y,Ch'ts'y)


Buchan, John
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ross, R. D.


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A


Carver, Major W. H.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Salmon, Major I.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Blrm.,W.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sandon, Lord


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Christle, J. A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Savery, S. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Iveagh, Countess of
Skelton, A. N.


Clarry, Reginald George
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Clayton, G. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Smithers, Waldron


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lamb, J. Q.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Cope, Major Sir William
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Locker-Lampson, Com.O. (Handsw'th)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Long, Major Eric
Tinne, J. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lougher, Lewis
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovl')
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lumley, L. R.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Wayland, Sir William A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Elliot, Major Walter E.
MacIntyre, Ian
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ellis, R. G.
McLean, Major A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Wolmer, Viscount
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Wragg, Herbert
Captain Bowyer and Major the


Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Ponsonby, Arthur


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Purcell, A. A.


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St.Ives)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barnes, A.
Hardle, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Scurr, John


Bellamy, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Benn, Wedgwood
Hayes, John Henry
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradlord, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Strauss, E. A.


Clarke, A. B.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sullivan, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lindley, F. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Longbottom, A. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Harry
Lowth, T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Welsh, J. C.


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, J. P.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
March, S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gibbins, Joseph
Maxton, James
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Wright, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mosley, Sir Oswald



Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charles


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Edwards.

Division No. 200.]
AYES.
[8.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Frece, Sir Walter de
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Albery, Irving James
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Apsley, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oakley, T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Atkinson, C.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Perring, Sir William George


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pilcher, G.


Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Berry, Sir George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bethel, A.
Hanbury, C.
Radford, E. A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harland, A.
Ramsden, E.


Bevan, S. J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Blundell, F. N.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, J. R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brass, Captain W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Salmon, Major I.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hilton, Cecil
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Broun-Lindsay, Major H
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Savery, S. S.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Skelton, A. N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlae.'C.)


Buchan, John
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burman, J. B.
Iveagh, Countess of
Smithers, Waldron


Caine, Gordon Hall
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.


Campbell, E. T.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Lamb, J. Q
Storry-Deans, R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Christie, J. A.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Clayton, G. C.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Long, Major Eric
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D
Looker, Herbert William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen South)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tinne, J. A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lumley, L. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tomlinson, R. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
MacIntyre, Ian
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay,Gainsbro)
McLean, Major A.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Dawson, Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Withers, John James


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wolmer, Viscount


Ellis, R. G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wragg, Herbert


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morris, R. H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)



Fermoy, Lord
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Forrest, W.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Major Sir William Cope and Mr.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nelson, Sir Frank
Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cape, Thomas
Groves, T.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Charleton, H. C.
Grundy, T. W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Clarke, A. B.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Ammon, Charles George
Cluse, W. S.
Hardle, George D.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Connolly, M.
Harris, Percy A.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dalton, Hugh
Hayday, Arthur


Barnes, A.
Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Hayes, John Henry


Barr, J.
Duncan, C.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Batey, Joseph
Dunnico, H.
Hirst, G. H.


Bellamy, A.
Gardner, J. P.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Benn, Wedgwood
Gibbins, Joseph
Hollins, A.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gillett, George M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bondfield, Margaret
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Briant, Frank
Greenall, T.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bromley, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kelly, W. T.


Kennedy, T.
Potts, John S.
Sutton, J. E.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ritson, J.
Taylor, R. A.


Lansbury, George
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)


Lawrence, Susan
Scrymgeour, E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Lawson, John James
Scurr, John
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Lee, F.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lindley, F. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wellock, Wilfred


Longbottom, A. W.
Shinwell, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lowth, T.
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lunn, William
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mackinder, w.
Snell, Harry
Windsor, Walter


MacLaren, Andrew
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wright, W.


Maxton, James
Stamford, T. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, Campbell



Oliver, George Harold
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Palin, John Henry
Strauss, E. A.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sullivan, J.
Whiteley.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 153, line 18, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 22.
This Amendment proposes to leave out the definition of "half-year," which at present appears in the Schedule. Originally, certain payments were to have been made by equal monthly instalments in each half-year, but as these payments are now to be made monthly on an annual basis, this definition is unnecessary and redundant.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 153, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
'Iron or steel works' means works which consist wholly or mainly of blast furnaces, puddling furnaces, steel furnaces, or rolling mills, or of hammers or presses which produce all or any of the following articles, that is to say, forgings weighing not less than 10 hundredweight, blooms, billets, and bars.
This is a definition of "iron or steel works" which is taken exactly out of Parts III and IV of the Schedule as it left Committee. It is thought better to put in the definition here as being more convenient for purposes of reference, and it also helps to lighten the rather complicated Parts III and IV of the Schedule and makes them easier to read.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 154, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
'Shipped coastwise,' in relation to exported coal, coke, or patent fuel, means shipped from a place within the British Islands to another place within those islands.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does this include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, I think that has always been so in regard to the definition of "coastwise," for this purpose.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With great respect, I think that, legally, the term "British Islands" would not include the Channel Islands; but if I have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that this definition will be taken as including them, I am quite satisfied.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 154, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
'Washery' means works for washing or cleaning coal.
This definition is inserted in order to make it clear that the word "washery" is to include not only a wet washery, but any process of cleaning coal.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 155, line 16, to leave out the words "relating to charges" and to insert instead thereof the words:
all payments by any of the companies to the fund in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule shall be treated as payments of rates and.
This Amendment is in order to bring this paragraph of the Schedule into line with paragraphs 19 and 20, and to prevent this scheme interfering with the ordinary rates charged under the Act of 1921.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 156, line 2, to leave out the words "agricultural purposes," and to insert instead thereof the words "use as manure."
This is to make it clear, if it was not clear before, that these particular agricultural selected traffics, namely, limestone, chalk, basic slag, and salt, are only to get the rebate if they are used for manure.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does this cover the salt used for manuring purposes only? Is it not used for a feeding stuff as well?

Colonel ASHLEY: Salt used as feeding stuff is not included.

Commander WILLIAMS: What about salt for curing purposes?

Colonel ASHLEY: This is only salt used for manure.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 156, to leave out lines 7 to 27, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"Grain, ground or flaked
Used in Great Britain for livestock or poultry feeding.


Oil cake, whole, broken, or ground


Meals or husks, in cases, casks, or sacks


Foods consisting of meals, with spice, molasses, or condiment


Milling offals, included in the grain list in the Classification of Merchandise for conveyance by railway


Treacle consigned direct to farmers


Ensilage


Hay


Hay or straw, chopped


Provender, consisting of chopped hay or straw, mixed with articles included in the grain list in the Classification of Merchandise for conveyance by railway


Beetroot pulp (residue from sugar making)


Carrots, mangel wurzel, or turnips, in bulk


Grains, brewers' or distillers' (or draff)

The allowances and rebates on the articles mentioned are for feeding stuffs used in Great Britain, so as to bring them into line with the items which we have been discussing at the bottom of page 155 and the top of page 156 of the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry I do not see the Minister of Agriculture here, as I was told at Question Time that he would be here to discuss certain matters, and I want to protest against the fact that fish has been left out of this part of the Schedule. The hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) also raised the point on the Committee stage, and I am surprised that since then nothing has been done to meet it. Here we have this long list of articles to aid agriculture, but the fishing industry, which has suffered great loss and is distressed at the present time, is being given no help at all. I had a question yesterday to the Prime Minister, as did the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne), with reference to the throwing into the sea of large quantities of fish taken into Buckie. I understand it was fish of poor quality, and one of the reasons given in the Press why it was not sent anywhere for food or other purposes was the high railway rates—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that fish is used for livestock or poultry feeding?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is arguing more generally.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Fish used as feeding stuffs or as manure gets a rebate, but not if used as food for human beings. That is the whole point.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It may be a very interesting point, but the whole point here is what shall be included as feeding stuffs for livestock or poultry feeding. It is a Schedule of articles for that purpose.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But there is a number of other items also on this list to be used for human food, as, for example, potatoes, milk, and livestock, at the bottom of Part II of the Schedule. Fish is also included, but only if used for manuring fields, and not as human food, and I was pointing out the great waste of food that took place
owing to the high railway rate, namely, 18s. a cran, to carry the fish to the nearest curing port.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see how the hon. and gallant Member can bring that in here. This Amendment is to add certain articles used for the feeding of poultry to the relieved category, but he cannot very well argue the question of fish on this Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was the largest of these Amendments on the Paper, and I thought, therefore, it was the most convenient point.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The occupant of the Chair is no respecter of the magnitude of the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It seemed to me to be an Amendment on which one could have protested, when so many things were added to the Bill or altered in so many ways, that the Minister of Agriculture had not asked for fish to be included. That was my only point in rising.

Commander WILLIAMS: In this list I see there is oil cake, which is composed of a good many different things, and I would like to ask whether those component parts are included in the term "oil cake," and if, supposing fish might be used for the manufacture of oil cake, we should be able under those circumstances to get our fish inserted in this particular Amendment. Why in the world have not the Government included the various foods for poultry which contain a very considerable amount of fish meal? It is a most valuable thing for poultry feeding. As we are not able to go into that discussion, which I had to take up for other people on the last occasion, I think there are one or two little points where I might be allowed to ask these questions, and I am sure someone on the Front Bench will be able to help me in the matter.

Mr. BENN: I apologise for asking the Minister a question, because all these Amendments that cover some reams of paper are described as either drafting or consequential, but I want to ask a question of substance. What is the reason for using the word "used in Great Britain" only to those items to which
they are applied in the Amendment? Why not apply them to the potatoes, milk and live stock as well?

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: As the question of fish meal has been raised, I should like to get an assurance from the Minister that "meals or husks in cases, casks or sacks" will include fish meal when used for live stock or poultry feeding.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I also should like to ask for a little more information. Near my constituency are the Twyford Mills, and I should like to ask the Minister if the balanced ration made by these mills out of the farmers' grain, and used instead of cake by many farmers in the neighbourhood, is included in this list in the Schedule. The material goes out in casks. It makes a great difference to the farmers of that district if this is included.

Colonel ASHLEY: The fish which goes to the manufacture of oil cakes will not be included. Oil cake is only included as long as it is used in Great Britain. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Benn), we do not want to confine the rebate to live stock for use in this country. We want to stimulate the export of good live stock overseas and, therefore, this is not a matter which should be confined to Great Britain. I am informed by the Ministry of Agriculture that potatoes and milk are for the same reason not included. You do not want to tie them down for use in this country.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: It is a pity that when such important questions are being put the Minister of Agriculture is not here to reply in detail. We all have a very great liking for the Minister of Transport, but we do not wish to see him put into the position of having to reply on matters on which he is not au fait. Questions have been put whether relief ought to be extended to the constituent parts of such foodstuffs as oilcake, and that is a matter of considerable importance to a number of interests engaged in that trade. The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is not confined to the question of excluding fish which is to be used for human consumption, but fish
which is to be used for the very large manufacture of fish meal for poultry food. The same thing applies to the various constituents used in the manufacture of balanced rations. It is of great importance to the inland mills which manufacture oilcake, and which have to import either the prime article, the oil kernel, or some manufacture which is passed on to them based upon the oil kernel. These manufactures should be enabled to obtain any relief which is available for articles of that kind. It is highly inconvenient for the House to have to come to a decision without the expert view of the Minister of Agriculture upon the matter.

Colonel ASHLEY: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kindly reference to myself. Obviously there must be a limit to the number of extra articles that can be put into any of these Schedules. The Government have gone a good way in various directions to meet the wishes of hon. Members and have put in quite a number of things. This long list is, after all, the same list as that in the Bill which emerged from the Committee. The Minister of Agriculture consulted all the interests connected with agriculture, and their considered opinion is that this Schedule meets their needs.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was the fishing industry consulted? Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 156, line 35, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 6,

page 157, and to insert instead thereof the words:
Exported coal, coke, or patent fuel.
Coal, coke, or patent fuel delivered to and used in iron or steel works.
Coal delivered to patent fuel works to the extent that it is exported as patent fuel after manufacture.
Coal delivered to a washery to the extent that it is, after being washed or cleaned, exported or delivered to iron or steel works.
Coal delivered to a coke oven (not being situated at iron or steel works) to the extent that it is, after being converted into coke at the coke oven, exported or delivered to iron or steel works.

This is the Amendment which we have already discussed. We have discussed whether the exempted traffic should be coal generally, or coal which is sent for export or to steel works, and the Amendment has been redrafted so as to cover all the coal which passes to the steel works in the way that I have explained.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the word "Exported."
According to the arrangement that has been made for the convenience of the House, we have debated this matter.

Question put, "That the word 'Exported' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 101.

Division No. 201.]
AYES.
[9.22 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crawfurd, H. E.


Ainsworth, Lieut-Col. Charles
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crooks, J. Smedley (Derltend)


Albery, Irving James
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Apsley, Lord
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Atkinson, C.
Buchan, John
Dawson, Sir Philip


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burman, J. B.
Dixey, A. C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Calne, Gordon Hall
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Campbell, E. T.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bethel, A.
Carver, Major W. H.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bevan, S. J.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Ellis, R. G.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Christle, J. A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)


Blundell, F. N.
Clayton, G. C.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Fermoy, Lord


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Forrest, W.


Brass, Captain W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Frece, Sir Walter de
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Salmon, Major I.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacIntyre, Ian
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Major A
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Savery, S. S.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Skelton, A. N.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Smithers, Waldron


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hanbury, C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Harland, A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Storry-Deans, R.


Harris, Percy A.
Morris, R. H.
Strauss, E. A.


Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hills, Major John Waller
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Tinne, J. A.


Hilton, Cecil
Oakley, T.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tomlinson, R. P.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Penny, Frederick George
Warrender, Sir Victor


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Iveagh, Countess of
Perring, Sir William George
Wayland, Sir William A.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Plicher, G.
Wells, S. R.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Lamb, J. Q.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Radford, E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ramsden, E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Withers, John James


Looker, Herbert William
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wolmer, Viscount


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Remer, J. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rentoul, G. S.
Wragg, Herbert


Lumley, L. R
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)



Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Sir William Cope and Captain Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Grundy, T. W.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Hardle, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bellamy, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hollins, A.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snell, Harry


Briant, Frank
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Clarke, A. B.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Harry
Lee, F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Dunnico, H.
Longbottom, A. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, T.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gardner, J. P.
Lunn William
Windsor, Walter


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.



Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold

Mr. CECIL WILSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from the word
"to" in line 2 to the end of the line, and to insert instead thereof the words:
any industrial establishment where coal, coke, or patent fuel is used in any process of manufacture or for purposes of transport.
We discussed this question to some extent in Committee, and the purpose is provided for to a considerable extent in the Amendment on the Paper. There are industries which do a large amount of work which seem to be penalised by their omission from the Schedule as it is now proposed by the Minister. There is the case of the iron foundry producing some heavy castings for all kinds of purposes and using considerable quantities of coke, and to them no relief whatever is granted and they do not come under this category. Again, we have engineering works, shipbuilding yards and other places where a very considerable amount of fuel is used, and they get no relief whatever. In the case of the iron foundry, it may be said that they are getting their relief in the way of the iron used in blast furnaces, but they are not entirely dependent on that, because they are using very considerable quantities of scrap in addition.
Then we have in mind two works belonging to the same firm, one of which will come under the Schedule but the other, doing work of a somewhat similar kind, will not come under the Schedule because it is being driven by electricity. One of the works in that case happens to be under the same firm, and therefore it may be said it does not suffer materially, but you have another case of the same kind, where the same condition applies, where there would seem to be very grave injustice. So you may see that in the case of one engineering works that is driven electrically from some public or other supply, they get no benefit whatever, whereas where you have got another works associated with iron and steel works, simply being driven by steam power, they get the benefit. In the same way, the Amendment proposes to extend the Schedule so as to cover the case of purposes of transport. In many of these industries there is a considerable amount of fuel used for transport purposes, and therefore the Amendment proposes to include that as well.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
My chief reason is, of course, that the passing of this Schedule will create yet
more internal competition among the mineowners than was the case before, and as that internal competition has been proved to be the chief reason for the destitution and poverty existing in the mining areas, it seems to me that we ought not to intensify that competition by means of any part of this Bill. Hon. Gentlemen will know that the Schedule as it stands deprives all those collieries that produce coal for gas purposes or for domestic purposes from any advantage at all under the Bill, while their competitors, who export a portion and sell the other portion to gas works, will be able to undercut them. The Secretary for Mines ought to have used his influence with his colleagues to see that intensified internal competition, resulting in the reduction of prices to an uneconomic level, and aggravating the poverty and destitution in the mining industry, should not be an outcome of anything contained in this Bill. I hope it is even yet not too late for a change of mind, and for words to be inserted which will dispose of the possibility of this intensified internal competition with its resultant reduced prices and lowered wages for the miners.

Commodore KING: This matter was fully discussed on the Committee stage, and it is only necessary to say one or two words. I would point out to the House, with regard to the relief of railway rates, that there is only a certain amount of money which can go in this relief, and it was at the request of the industry, of the Miners' Federation and representatives of the miners themselves, that the relief was concentrated in the way in which it now appears in the Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that a large body of coalowners made representations with regard to house coal and gas coal?

Commodore KING: No; on the contrary, it was the opinion of the mining industry, owners and men, that the greatest amount of relief would be given to the industry by this concentration. When there is only a certain amount of money to be shared by an industry, I think everybody will agree that if it can be concentrated in the form now proposed the industry will get the greatest possible benefit. I would further remind hon. Members of what I said on the Committee stage as to the practical impos-
sibility, owing to administrative difficulties, of our making a distinction here between coal used throughout the country for industrial purposes and domestic coal. It is easy enough in the case of a large industry such as the iron and steel trade to earmark the coal which is going to be used in that industry; but in the case of industry generally throughout the country hon. Members opposite know full well that it is almost impossible to say what is the destination of the coal when a factor or an agent buys it. That is a practical difficulty which of itself would be fatal to the suggestion of the hon. Member, quite apart from the desire for concentration expressed by the industry.

Mr. KELLY: One has heard that interests were consulted and expressed their views to the Department. I wonder whether an expression of opinion was asked for from the heavy industries. I have not heard of the shipbuilding or engineering industry having had any voice in this matter. If coal for the iron and steel trades can be distinguished, surely it would be equally easy to distinguish the coal used for such heavy industries as engineering and shipbuilding. These great industries, which have been suffering for years, should have had whatever benefit there is to come out of this scheme—I am not sure there is a great deal to come out of it—if the Government meant to help industry. I certainly hope the Amendment will be supported.

Mr. LAWSON: The Secretary for Mines has made a statement for which I think we ought to have some documentary proof. He has stated that the Minors' Federation asked for this form of concentrated relief. Has he any proof of that statement?

Commodore KING: I certainly had no intention of saying the Miners' Federation but the Mining Associations and representatives of the men.

Mr. LAWSON: It is quite true that representatives of miners from certain coalfields did join the coal owners in asking for that, and it is true also that the Miners' Federation asked for some form of relief for the coal industry; but the House ought to understand that the Miners' Federation never did ask for the relief in a concentrated form. This is the kind of statement with which the
House is getting familiar. The President of the Board of Trade, when dealing with freight relief, said the Durham coal owners had actually asked for freight relief in a form which was going to exclude some of the collieries from the benefit of that relief and that was definitely turned down by the Durham coal owners themselves. They did ask for concentrated relief, but they did not ask for relief in a form which was going to exclude their fellow coal owners.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I quoted a resolution which was passed, and no one had ever denied that that resolution was passed. I must leave it at that.

Mr. LAWSON: But the coal owners who passed that resolution have very definitely denied that they agreed to the exclusion of the private railways from the arrangement, or that the resolution bore any such interpretation. The Secretary for Mines has been pointing out that this freight relief for export purposes has already had wonderful results. I am glad to say that the coal trade is doing better, as far as the North is concerned, and that there is a possibility of a few mines being opened. I do not care where that improvement comes from, so long as I see the industry going ahead and men being employed; but it would be very interesting for the Secretary for Mines or the President of the Board of Trade to explain how 7d. a ton relief gives an advance of 2s. or 3s. a ton in price in about a month? The improvement in the coal trade, as put by the trade newspapers of the North, arises from causes far outside this de-rating Bill. The sole cause of the rise in price is the frost.
When the de-rating relief was being dealt with a member of a Conservative party pointed out that what was being proposed would be unfair to cotton and woollen manufacturers in this country who would have to meet unfair competition from abroad. What we wish to do is to enlarge the scope of this proposal so that all industrial establishments using coal will get the benefit. A member of the Conservative party actually pointed out that the policy being adopted would give cheap coal to foreign competitors and that this would inflict a great injury on our home industries. Why should we give special
terms to our foreign competitors when the greater part of the coal is used for home trade purposes?
If the principles of the Conservative party mean anything at all they mean that we should support home production and British production as against foreign production. Experience shows that causes altogether outside the de-rating proposals have come into operation in the world's market. Those causes have affected the coal trade, and I think it would have been much better if this relief had been given to the industries in this country instead of to our competitors abroad. The de-rating relief has not affected our position in the world's market. I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment. Whether you are dealing with industries or with the people the policy of the Government should be to help the people of this country. It is a very strange proceeding for a Government which spends half its time in safeguarding small industries to be giving relief to foreign competitors which has the effect of closing down some of our home industries.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The discussion of this Amendment illustrates the truth which we have put forward again and again from this side of the House that this Bill is full of anomalies and inconsistencies. The reply of the Secretary for Mines was confined to the point that it was essential to keep the form of the original Amendment, because the trade wanted to concentrate the relief. The Government are not sticking to that policy in all the Schedules of the Bill.

Take the Schedule of relief to the agricultural industry and you will find that whilst you may have in mind concentration on relief to agriculture as a whole, you have the division so widespread amongst the various industries that it is practically of no avail, and you do not concentrate the relief.

I will deal with the iron and steel industry. We are very much concerned with the iron and steel industry in Sheffield, and in my opinion the conditions we are laying down will raise a whole crop of trouble amongst supporters of the Government in Sheffield. Under the definition which has been inserted in this Measure iron and steel works will be the only works to be relieved and under this further Amendment the relief will be confined to furnaces responsible for producing forgings weighing not less than 10 hundredweight. The result will be that many manufacturers will not get any relief in this direction at all, and they will have a real grievance. I do not think that this kind of dole given out in penny numbers to industry is going to have any effect whatever upon the general prosperity of industry. All these invidious distinctions which are to be found in this Bill with regard to the relief to be doled out to industry will fail, and you will only produce petty squabbles and log-rolling which ought not to be associated with British industry.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 102.

Division No. 202.]
AYES.
[9.53 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Albery, Irving James
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davies, sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Apsley, Lord
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Ashley, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Dixey, A. C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Buchan, John
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Burman, J. B.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Atkinson, C.
Calne, Gordon Hall
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Campbell, E. T.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Carver, Major W. H.
Ellis, R. G.


Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-S.-M.)


Bethel, A.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Betterton, Henry B.
Christle, J. A.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Clayton, G. C.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Blundell, F N.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fermoy, Lord


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Forrest, W.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Brass, Captain W.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Grotrian, H. Brent
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Savery, S. S.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Skelton, A. N.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Hanbury, C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Harland, A.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smithers, Waldron


Hartington, Marquess of
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morris, R. H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Storry Deans, R.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hills, Major John Waller
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hilton, Cecil
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Tinne, J. A.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Oakley, T.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tomlinson, R. P.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Penny, Frederick George
Warrender, Sir Victor


Iveagh, Countess of
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Perring, Sir William George
Wayland, Sir William A.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Pilcher, G.
Wells, S. R.


Lamb, J. Q.
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Radford, E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Ramsden, E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Looker, Herbert William
Held, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Withers, John James


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wolmer, Viscount


Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Remer, J. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Lumley, L. R.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wragg, Herbert


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)



Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Major Sir William Cope and Captain


MacIntyre, Ian
Salmon, Major I.
Margesson.


McLean, Major A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hardle, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewie


Bellamy, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hollins, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Clarke, A. B.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sullivan, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Taylor, R. A.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Duncan, C.
Longbottom, A. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Lunn, William
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 157, to leave out from the word "Works," in line 14, column 2, to the end of line 22.
This Amendment is consequential on an earlier Amendment to insert a definition of iron and steel works in paragraph 16, which renders unnecessary and redundant the words which I now move to leave out.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I beg to move, in page 157, line 25, column 1, at the end, to insert the words:
Unmanufactured grain, consigned direct to millers.
I do not propose to detain the House for more than a minute, because this matter was discussed with the Minister of Agriculture on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill. The effect of this Amendment, if the Minister decides to accept it, would be to put those millers who have their manufacturing establishments away from the coast on the same level as millers on the coast for the purposes of rendering service to British agriculture. It is probably unnecessary to remind the Minister that the inland millers are just as patriotic and anxious to assist the revival of agriculture, and to arrest the tendency among the farmers to recede from the Tory party, as are the port millers. The Minister of Agriculture, when I submitted this case to him, admitted the inequity of the position, and the only excuse that he offered was that, if he put the inland millers on the same footing as the coast and port millers, he might in that way be encouraging the use of foreign grain at the expense of British grain.
He was persuaded, as I understand, before his speech was concluded, that he was incorrect in that view, and, therefore, we may assume that the position of the Minister of Agriculture is that he admits the inequity, and that the only plea that he can make is that, if he were to attempt to remedy it, he would be obliged on principle to attempt it for a hundred others. On these grounds he would not yield to persuasions from this side. I presume that he went away to think about the matter, and I have some hope that the Minister of Health will not take the view of the Minister of
Agriculture, that, because there are a hundred injustices in this Bill, it is not worth while to remedy one of them. This is not a very important Amendment as things go, but it would please the farmers and the inland millers, and, if we may say that in round figures there are a hundred faults in the Bill, it would reduce the number to ninety-nine.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think it is appropriate that I should do so, because in my constituency there is one of the biggest groups of Hour mills in the country, and it might be supposed at the first glance that they would get some advantage. I have been asked by the Corn Trade Association to press again on the Minister of Transport or whoever is in charge of this part of the Bill the inequity which has been described by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith). They feel very strongly that it is unfair that because this Schedule was arranged simply it negotiation with the National Farmers' Union and the railway companies, therefore it cannot be departed from. Again and again we have been up against that trouble. A bargain is made behind the scenes by the Minister of Transport with the National Farmers' Union and I am quite convinced in this case that has been done. I repeat what I said earlier, that if no satisfaction can be given now, perhaps when this system is in full working order and these anomalies have been established, if the Government are in a position to do so, then they will agree to alter this.

Colonel ASHLEY: Do I understand that the millers in Hull have an advantage over anybody else?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, it is the corn traders in Hull. The millers in Hull do not depend on it at all.

Mr. TOMLINSON: Perhaps there is more in this Amendment than hon. Members realise. It is quite true, as has been said here to-day, that as the Schedule now stands—I do not want to criticise the Schedule as a whole; I think it has been excellently drawn by the Ministers and those concerned—on this particular point it is open to Amendment. There are many farmers who use feeding-stuffs for their dairy cattle, not only oil cake, which includes compound
cakes, but Indian meal and ground maize. A farmer using ground maize would rather have that maize ground by the country miller, with whom he is dealing, than at the port, because he has confidence in the country miller. Under this Schedule, however, the port miller gets an advantage as against the country miller, because in the case of maize that is being sent from Liverpool to Lancaster or to Wales, the miller at the port, if he takes the maize in and grinds it, gets 10 per cent. relief on the meal that is sent to Wales or Lancaster. If, however, the maize is sent direct to Lancaster or Wales, and is ground there, the country miller does not get the relief. The Minister of Transport would be ready to acknowledge that that is giving under this Schedule an advantage to the port miller and is a disadvantage to the country miller. If the right hon. Gentleman can only find some method of redressing that grievance it would be equitable all round.

Colonel ASHLEY: In the first place, may I point out to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) that the Amendment is in an extraordinary place? He is moving to put in Part IV, which deals with iron ore, and so on, delivered to iron and steel works, an item dealing with unmanufactured grain consigned direct to millers. That seems rather a difficult proposition to understand.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I am quite willing, and I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) would be willing also, to put it at the end of Clause 120.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am afraid that that is not possible now. If this Amendment were inserted in the Schedule, it would be hard that a very considerable proportion of the rebate of the iron and steel works should be taken up and given to unmanufactured grain supplied direct to millers. This is an arguable point, but the House must remember that as far as the millers are concerned a good proportion of the grain with which they deal comes from the surrounding districts and goes direct to them.

Mr. TOMLINSON: The point with which I was dealing was with regard to
maize. I did not speak at all about grain grown in the surrounding district.

Colonel ASHLEY: No doubt if this Amendment were passed there would be a certain advantage given to foreign grain which it does not now possess when it is sent from the port to the inland miller. It seems to me that the Mover of the Amendment and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull were rather in disagreement, because the hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that the poor, unfortunate miller would suffer compared with the miller at the port, whereas the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull said that his millers had no advantage over those in inland towns. It seems to me, therefore, that their arguments are mutually destructive.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Where my constituency is hit is that we want to import more maize, although I am afraid that would be against the home farmer.

Colonel ASHLEY: These Schedules were settled and the items agreed upon with the interests of the agricultural industry; not only with the Farmers' Union but with all the other interests that could possibly be consulted by my right hon. Friend. As I said on the previous Amendment, you cannot go on extending these freight reliefs to all and sundry; if you do that you dissipate the amount of money which can be given to that particular section of the industry. Therefore, my right hon. Friend having thought over this matter since the Committee stage, has asked me to say he is very sorry he cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The Minister of Transport has again illustrated the handicap under which the House suffers from not having the Minister of Agriculture present. I agree that the Minister of Agriculture could not have perhaps given any different decision, but he might have been expected to know exactly what was going to be covered by the Amendment. He would have known that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Tomlinson) was really referring to the meal made from imported maize, but that did not seem to strike the Minister of Transport. The Government are failing to appreciate the fact that this particular Amendment, like other Amendments which have been moved, has not been moved entirely in
the interests of the inland millers. It has been moved in the interests of the farmers, as much as in the interests of the inland millers. Undoubtedly the port millers are getting special reliefs upon such matters as offal. When the farmer goes to the inland millers with whom he has intimate trading relationships, very often on a trade basis, he is told by those millers that they are prepared to reduce the price of the offal produced by the inland mill to compete with the price of the offal now obtainable at the port mill.
The next stage is when the farmer who has relationships with the inland miller or with the corn merchant wants to sell his grain, for which he finds a very poor market at the port, and to which in many cases he cannot afford to send the grain from his locality and pay carriage upon it, he is told that, as the inland miller has had to come down in price for offal and feeding stuffs to compete with the mill at the port, which has been subsidised, he can only afford to give lower price for the grain which the farmer is selling to the inland mill. That is applying not only to wheat but to barley, and if anyone examines the price lists in the last few weeks since these rebates were put into operation and sees the fall in the price offered for home grain he will see that really the advantage given by the Government to the port miller is reacting against the local interest of the farmer who has direct relationship with the inland miller and the corn merchant.
We are looking at this, not in the interest of the miller but in the interest of the general farming community. If you are going to start spreading relief as you have in the case of the agricultural Schedule, there seems to be no earthly reason why you should not put the farmer who has trading relationships with the inland miller upon as good a footing as those who have direct relation-

ships with the port miller, and if there was any case for concentration at all, surely it would be very much better if you wiped out all these pettifogging reliefs and concentrated upon one relief, as was suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), say, upon some essential thing for agriculture, like fertilisers, instead of which, under the present arrangement, the relief on fertilisers is so insignificant as hardly to be appreciable. I have a circular from people dealing with Chilian nitrates who say they will be passing on the relief of 1s. a ton. I looked up my price-list and I find the price for that kind of fertiliser is £10 to £10 15s. a ton, and as a ton covers from 10 to 15 acres, this wonderful relief is something less than a penny an acre. If there is anything in the case that has been put up again and again from the Government bench that these reliefs can best be passed on with effective results to industry by concentration, surely it ought to be practised in the case of agriculture. But as the Government, in the case of agriculture, has seen fit to spread the relief over a whole range of commodities, there seems to be no case at all for leaving out the plea of the inland miller and the farmer who is associated with him, that they should be put on exactly the same footing as the port miller.

Mr. LAMB: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss the question from the point of view of feeding stuffs for farmers? Should not that come under another portion of the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman was only using that as an illustration.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 171.

Division No. 203.]
AYES
[10.20 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromley, J.
Dunnico, H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Forrest, W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Buchanan, G.
Gardner, J. P.


Ammon, Charles George
Cape, Thomas
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Charieton, H. C.
Gibbins, Joseph


Barnes, A.
Clarke, A. B.
Gillett, George M.


Barr, J.
Cluse, W. S.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Batey, Joseph
Connolly, M.
Greenall, T.


Bellamy, A.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Benn, Wedgwood
Dalton, Hugh
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Bondfield, Margaret
Day, Harry
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bowerman, Bt. Hon. Charles W.
Duncan, C.
Grundy, T. W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Longbottom, A. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Hardie, George D.
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell


Harris, Percy A.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hayday, Arthur
Mackinder, W.
Strauss, E. A.


Hayes, John Henry
MacLaren, Andrew
Sullivan, J.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.


Hirst, G. H.
Morris, R. H.
Taylor, R. A.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hollins, A.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Tinker, John Joseph


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Oliver, George Harold
Tomlinson, R. P.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Palin, John Henry
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Potts, John S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffs)


Kelly, W. T.
Scurr, John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kennedy, T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Windsor, Walter


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lansbury, George
Shinwell, E.



Lawrence, Susan
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lawson, John James
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Lee, F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Whiteley.


Lindley, F. W.
Snell, Harry



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Waldea)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fermoy Lord
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Apsley, Lord
Fraser, Captain Ian
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Atholl, Duchess of
Ganzonl, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Atkinson, C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Oakley, T.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grotrian, H. Brent
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Hanbury, C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bethel, A.
Harland, A.
Perring, Sir William George


Betterton, Henry B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Plicher, G.


Bevan, S. J.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Radford, E. A.


Bowater, Colonel Sir T. Vansittart
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Raine, Sir Walter


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Ramsden, E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hilton, Cecil
Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Brass, Captain W.
Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard
Remer, J. R.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rentoul, G. S.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Iveagh, Countess of
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Burman, J. B.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Campbell, E. T.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Savery, S. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Ktnc'dlne, C.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron


Christle, J. A.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Clayton, G. C.
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lougher, Lewis
Storry-Deans, R.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vers
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cope, Major Sir William
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Crookshank, Col C. de W. (Berwick)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Tinne, J. A.


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsay, Gainsbro)
MacIntyre, I.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Captain H.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Dixey, A. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General K.
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Ellis, R. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-e.-M.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)




Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wragg, Herbert
Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.


Withers, John James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)



Wolmer, Viscount




Resolution agreed to.

CLAUSE 121.—(Transitory and temporary provisions and adaptation of enactments.)

Amendment made:

In page 104, line 23, leave out the words "Poor Law Act, 1927, and the other."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

CLAUSE 123.—(Definitions.)

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, in page 106, line 27, at the end, to insert the words:
'Infectious disease' means any of the diseases named in the Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act, 1889, Section 6, and any other diseases added thereto by order of the local authority with the approval or concurrence of the Minister of Health, or any infectious disease made notifiable by Order of the Minister of Health under Section 30 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and the corresponding Section of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
In Clause 15 there is no definition of infectious disease. It is a Clause which makes an exception in regard to a person suffering from an infectious disease when it becomes a question of recovering a contribution towards the cost of treatment. I maintain that for administrative purposes it is absolutely necessary to have a uniform definition of these excepted diseases. The definition might be diseases which are notifiable by law. I raise this question because1 I think it is perfectly absurd to leave the definition of infectious disease in the air, to be defined by any medical man.

Commander WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot accept this Amendment, because the words the hon. and gallant Member proposes to insert would exclude venereal disease, which is not a notifiable disease. Infectious diseases are not defined in the Public Health Act, and, therefore, they are not defined in this Act.

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from, the Chair.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendment made:

In page 107, line 33, after the word "means," insert the words "subject to the provisions of the last foregoing section."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Consequential Amendment made.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Rules for calculations in respect of General Exchequer Grants.)

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendments to the Fourth Schedule are out of Order, because they involve a charge.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to the determination and payment of compensation to officers.)

Amendment made:

In page 131, line 18, leave out the words "In this Schedule" and insert instead thereof the words "and (c)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.}

NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Transitional provisions.)

Amendment made:

In page 136, leave out from the word "hereditament" in line 14 to the word "become" in line 15, and insert the words "which has."

TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Adaptation of enactments.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 139, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
2. References in any enactment to Subsection (2) of Section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1888, shall be construed as references to the provisions of this Act relating to the rights of certain urban district councils to maintain county roads.
3. Where by any enactment any forms are prescribed, the Minister may by order make such adaptations thereof as may appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of bringing the forms into conformity with this Act.
4. The Minister may by order made on the application of any council exercising functions under this Act make such amendments or adaptations of any local Act as may appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of bringing any provision of that Act into conformity with the provisions of this Act.
This Amendment is moved in order to give clarity in the interpretation of the various Acts. It provides that references to any enactment in Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1888, shall be construed as references to the provisions of this Act. There is also a provision to retain the powers relating to the repairing of main roads. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Amendment are merely drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 143, line 16, after the word "school," insert the words "or asylum."

In page 143, to leave out lines 22 to 30.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

TWELFTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 159, line 48, at the end, to insert the words:

38 & 39 Vic., c. 55.
The Public Health Act, 1875.
In section one hundred and ninety the words "there may be awarded," to the end of the section.

This Amendment relates to the Section of the Public Health Act which provides that the wages of clerks and treasurers of boards of guardians shall be such remuneration as the local authority may determine with the consent of the Local Government Board in respect of their additional duties in public health, and the object of repealing this Section is to make it clear that that provision does not apply to clerks of county councils and treasurers of county councils who are now substituted for the clerks to the guardians and treasurers to the guardians.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 167, line 30, column 3, to leave out the words "paragraph 2," and to insert instead thereof the words "paragraphs 2 and 3."
This is consequential on an Amendment which was made in Clause 65 during the Committee stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 168, leave out from the word "thirty-three," in line 4, column 3, to the end of line 11, and insert instead thereof the words "Sub-section (3)."

In page 168, leave out from the word "thirty-two," in line 22, column 3, to the end of line 29, and insert instead thereof the words "Sub-section (2)."

In page 171, line 35, column 3, leave out the word "and."

In line 38, column 3, at the end, insert the words:
and Sub-section (5) except so far as it relates to Scotland."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
Bill to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Grand Junction Company Bill (by Order).—Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill (by Order),

London Electric Railway Companies (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic)1 Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT [11TH FEBRUARY].

Resolution reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1928.

CLASS V.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £366,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Exchequer Contribution to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Education Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations): Expenses of Training and Transference of Workpeople within Great Britain and Overseas: and sundry services, including services arising out of the War."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes before Eleven o'clock.